Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET ) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Monday 19 February at Seven o'clock.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as atnended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 19 February at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As the 16 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)

EXMOUTH Doacs BILL (By Order)

HYFHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
(By Order)

VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL
(By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL
(By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
(By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farm Animals (Welfare)

Mr. Janman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies he is considering further to improve farm animal welfare practices.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): Yesterday I announced a major initiative, which aims to achieve significant improvements in the welfare of all farm animals in Europe. The important features are to set proper standards for animals in transit and for export, to achieve high standards on farms and at slaughter and to ensure that Community welfare legislation is rigorously enforced.

Mr. Janman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative. He knows that I have written to him on several occasions about animal welfare. Will he confirm that unless action is taken on a Communitywide basis, we could well be in danger of importing substantial amounts of food from other countries in the Community where the increasingly high standards that we are adopting in the United Kingdom are not being adopted?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. If we do not get Europeanwide standards at least to the level that now applies in Britain, our farmers meeting those higher standards will be undercut by other countries producing foods at standards that we would not tolerate here.

Mr. Duffy: In introducing his charter last night, the Minister accepted that he had a moral duty to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are met. How does he square that with his continued tolerance of ritual slaughter?

Mr. Gummer: I intend to make a statement about ritual slaughter in the not too-distant-future. The hon. Gentleman's religious position is well known. In a civilised society we have to bring together two imperatives: first, the proper care of animals and secondly, the proper rights of individuals with strong religious views to carry out those views.

Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the EC directive on battery hens, in which arguably, standards are set too low, will my right hon. Friend ensure that EC harmonisation on animal welfare does not take place at the lowest common denominator?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The current level of 450 is unacceptable. We fought for a higher level in the original negotiations and discussions in which I took part a couple of years ago. We are now insisting that the Commission brings forward recommendations to raise the level significantly.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that over the past few years there has been no trade in or export from Britain of live horses for slaughter—a practice which British people find particularly abhorrent? In view of that, why in his announcement yesterday did he throw in the

towel to the EEC and accept the introduction of that unpalatable trade? Why has not the right hon. Gentleman sought a derogation to stop the trade in live horses for slaughter, on the ground that our horses suffer extra distress due to a sea crossing?

Mr. Gummer: I did not throw in the towel and I would not have dreamt of doing so. I said clearly that we shall fight in the Community to retain the present arrangments to stop the export of horses or for an alternative that meets the same requirements. The hon. Gentleman should read the statements that I make rather than make them up for himself.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the contribution agriculture can make to the efficient use and generation of energy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My Department gives grants under the farm and conservation grant scheme to encourage the use of renewable sources of energy, to cut energy loss or to recover energy that would otherwise go to waste.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will the Ministry do more to encourage the use of farm waste products to generate energy? I noticed in the press that a farm near Eye in Suffolk generates electricity from the methane that chicken manure creates. The slogan for farmers in the 1990s should be not, "Power to the people" but, "Power from the pullets".

Mr. Curry: The Ministry assists the purchase of equipment for waste recovery. The recovery of methane from waste has generally not proved economic, but should it prove so we should certainly wish to accelerate that process.

Mr. Key: Now that my hon. Friend has reached the difficult but balanced view that it is necessary to ban straw burning, will he take all possible steps to ensure that farmers are encouraged to use surplus straw in an energy-efficient manner and, furthermore, that the necessary technology is available to them at an economic price?

Mr. Curry: We offer assistance for equipment to treat straw to make it more digestible and more usable as an energy source. My hon. Friend will be aware of a large-scale project that uses straw, which would be extremely helpful.

Egg Imports

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the incidence of salmonella contamination in imported eggs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Eight consignments of imported eggs have been found to be contaminated with invasive salmonella since April 1989, and on each occasion we have asked the member state concerned to take remedial action. In addition, my right hon. Friend pressed the European Community at the


last Agriculture Council speedily to introduce on an EC wide basis measures similar to those adopted by the United Kingdom.

Dr. Moonie: That sounded a most impressive answer, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that the welcome increase in standards of egg production in Britain has not been matched by a fall in the number of cases of salmonellosis in humans. Will he therefore consider introducing a regulation similar to the one that the Germans are applying to stop imports of our beef?

Mr. Maclean: We have no justification under EC law to slap a ban on all imported eggs, just as other countries did not slap a ban on our eggs when the salmonella crisis was at its height.

Mr. Alexander: I accept all that, but if a farm in this country shows the slightest trace of salmonella, is not it the case that its entire flock must he destroyed, yet testing at the ports of entry is minimal and by the time we have decided that there is salmonella in eggs, they have already been distributed?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend points to the absolute necessity of an EC wide regime. That is why we have accepted the advice of the Select Committee on Agriculture and redoubled our efforts in Europe to achieve a system of salmonella testing across the EC.

Mr. Morley: The Minister well knows that the Germans have used article 36 of the treaty of Rome to stop British beef entering Germany. Why cannot he use the same article to hold imported eggs until they have been proved to be safe? Our producers are suffering from the rightly strict safeguards and assessments while imported eggs are being let off scot-free.

Mr. Maclean: The one little point that the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that the Germans used the treaty illegally, contrary to the advice of the standing scientific committee and contrary to the view of the European Commission. It is not appropriate for Britain to try to use EC rules illegally to place a totally unjustified ban on eggs.

Mr. Lord: Nevertheless, when all the explanations are given, does my hon. Friend agree that for too long, we have been playing the game straight? Is it not true that we must either learn to bend the rules in the way that the foreigners are doing, or otherwise—[HON. MEMBERS: Play the game.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lord: In a nutshell, are not our farmers entitled to feel angry? The bottom line is still that eggs may be imported to compete with our eggs, but our quite acceptable beef is banned from Germany.

Mr. Maclean: The bottom line is that we should learn from other countries how to market produce. We have all seen the words of the Select Committee that British eggs are safer than imported eggs. We all know that, as the Select Committee pointed out, it is perfectly legitimate for every producer in this country to mark on the pack where the eggs have been produced, whether in Britain, Scotland, England, Wales or any county. That is a marketing initiative that our producers can take.

Hormones

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there have been in the United Kingdom for illegal hormone use by United Kingdom livestock farmers.

Mr. Maclean: In 1989, four prosecution cases were taken and two resulted in convictions. This Ministry will prosecute whenever we have sufficient evidence of law breaking.

Mr. Wardell: When will the Minister listen to the staff of his Ministry and act with his Home Office colleagues to close the gap in United Kingdom law that allows the illegal implanting of hormones to go unpunished because of the requirement that prosecutions have to be brought within six months of the hormones being implanted?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to those who are enforcing the regulations in this country and to those who are producing beef. He is right to demand that any who break the law should be brought to justice. We have the most rigid surveillance system on the illegal use of hormones of any country in the European Community. We have found such a tiny sample that the hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to other European Community countries, where there are official reports of 10 per cent. hormone abuse, and not to this country.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister tell the House in rather more detail how the use of illegal hormones in cattle is detected, so that we can see whether the number of prosecutions that have been brought match the amount of testing? As it is easy enough to discover the illegal use of hormones among Welsh weightlifters, we should be able to discover it among cattle.

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to reply to the gentleman farmer from Newham. Hormones would usually be administered behind the ear and our veterinary officers are more adept at detecting traces on the surface of the animal if it has suffered from illegal hormone use. One can also pick up such use in the meat at slaughterhouses. We carry out about 40,000 random tests of meat products in this country for many residues and contaminants. Those are the technical details of how it is done. I am convinced that our surveillance system is the most comprehensive. If there is hormone abuse, we are catching it, and at present, we are catching a tiny amount. The hon. Gentleman should look to other countries for hormone abuse.

Farming Diversification

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards farming diversification.

Mr. Gummer: Two Government-sponsored reports published recently give, for the first time, a clear picture of farm diversification in the United Kingdom. Those reports show that about one third of the farmers who responded have developed some form of farm-diversified business activity. That result gives a clear demonstration of the success of the Government's policy in this area.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree—the flooding of the past few days has confirmed the fact—that in an area


such as the Scottish Highlands, there are practical problems in diversification because, in much of the agricultural activity, there is simply no alternative? Will he bear in mind, as he pursues the diversification policy, the problems of diversifying in an area such as the Scottish Highlands? Will he also bear in mind the worry that diversification into other sectors elsewhere in Britain, especially the sheep sector, may have a resultant knock-on effect on prices and on the economic basis of agriculture in the north? Will he, therefore, be sympathetic and sensitive to those problems in the years to come?

Mr. Gummer: That is why I agreed to announce a week or so ago an increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments to the highland areas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it was a disgrace that a Labour Front-Bench spokesman referred to that statement as "footling", as if the hill areas do not matter. We now know what Labour thinks about the hill areas.

Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his affirmative nod to me in the debate on Tuesday when I said that although farm diversification was welcome and that he was to be commended for it, it could make only a marginal contribution to farm incomes? Will he warn farmers that this place would simply not be big enough if all of them followed me by diversifying into Parliament?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has diversified extremely effectively. Many farmers find alternative ways of using their capital and land. Clearly, the main business of farming is and will continue to be the production of food. Every farmer who diversifies helps to take the pressure off farmers who are unable so to do.

Mr. Hardy: Which adjective would the Minister prefer to footling—mischievous, irresponsible or misleading?

Mr. Gummer: Now it appears that the Opposition think that the hill farmers of Britain are mischievous, irresponsible and misleading, as well as footling.

Animal Health

Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to compensate farmers at 100 per cent. of the market value for beasts which he requires to be slaughtered on animal health grounds.

Mr. Maclean: Different levels of compensation are payable according to the disease control measure concerned. In some cases, an owner may receive more than the value of the slaughtered animal. I keep all aspects of my compensation policy under constant review.

Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when farm incomes are falling and the green pound is grossly overvalued in Britain, we should at least compensate farmers, if only to avoid the remote possibility of people seeking to evade the law, thus spreading the disease problems that we already have?

Mr. Maclean: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have great sympathy for farmers whose cows suffer from bovine spongiform encephalopathy, particularly farmers who have more than one animal affected by it. The mechanism for preventing BSE from getting into the food chain is not

compensation, which is intended to help farmers suffering financial loss. We protect the food chain by the host of other measures that we take, particularly the offals ban.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister extend the compensation scheme to sheep suffering from scrapie? Under the present system a sheep suffering from scrapie is slaughtered, its head is cut off and condemned and the rest of the carcase goes to the butcher. Is it not a fact that BSE has been caused by the scrapie virus?

Mr. Maclean: No, Sir. Scrapie has been well known and recorded for the past 250 years. It is present in many other countries. There has been no risk to human health whatever. I keep all aspects of my compensation policy under review, but this is not a matter which I am currently considering.

Mr. Neale: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no evidence that the National Farmers Union has encouraged its members, or the Minister, to avoid public health requirements? Does he accept that in the lead contamination incident, which affects part of the west country, innocent farmers may suffer financial hardship as a result of the blanket application of such precautions? Will he make sure that in future he supplies sufficient resources for such incidents, so that hardship is minimised?

Mr. Maclean: Of course, we want to minimise hardship to farmers or others who suffer through no fault of their own. The restrictions that my Department put in place in the lead in feed incident in the west country were based on the best scientific advice and were intended to protect the human food chain. Where we had information that feed may have been given to farmers, we applied restrictions. As soon as we had information that human health was not in jeopardy, we removed those restrictions.

Mr. Ron Davies: Why is the Minister so obstinate in rejecting the demands from hon. Members of all parties for 100 per cent. compensation for BSE? As he knows that it is impossible to find a farmer, a vet or a local authority inspector who will deny that BSE-infected animals are entering the food chain, will he now reconsider his decision? If he introduces 100 per cent. compensation, at least he can start to deal with the problem of clinically infected animals. If he is then prepared to accept the recommendation of the Tyrrell committee to introduce random sampling of all bovine brains, at least the public will have some idea of the extent of the epidemic, or does he simply not want the public to know?

Mr. Maclean: That last remark is outrageous. The hon. Gentleman is right to advance an argument for farmers receiving more compensation because they have suffered financial loss, but that argument is totally separate from protecting the human food chain. It is not right to suggest that BSE-infected animals are getting into the food chain, because we have taken all preventive measures. The recent record of the British Veterinary Association states:
But, there was no evidence that the current compensation level was encouraging farmers to shed off animals for slaughter and inclusion in the food chain.
I keep my compensation policy under review and I am concerned about financial loss for farmers. However, our compensation policy has nothing to do with protecting the human food chain. We have other measures to do that.

Mr. Hague: I accept many of my hon. Friend's arguments, but does he at least accept the principle that no farmer should be worse off because of reporting a suspected instance of BSE? Is he confident that 50 per cent. compensation is sufficient to ensure that and will he consider whether a higher percentage many be necessary?

Mr. Maclean: Of couse, I reaffirm that I keep my compensation policy under review. There is nothing to deter a farmer from reporting a suspected case because, as everyone should know, if we destroy an animal and later discover from veterinary analysis that it does not have BSE, we pay 100 per cent. compensation in any case.

Loan Interest

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the burden of loan interest which is being carried by the agricultural industry.

Mr. Curry: We do understand the problems of farmers facing difficulties, but I must point out that the total income from farming increased by 11 per cent. last year, after the effect of interest payments had been take into account. The fight against inflation must remain the major priority for the Government and is very much in the interests of farmers.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has conveniently avoided explaining exactly how much the industry is paying in interest rates at the moment. However, I am grateful to him for confirming in a written reply earlier this week that the industry is paying out as much in interest rates as he is paying into it for market regulation and price guarantees in the current year. Will he acknowledge that the £1,000 million cost of interest to farmers this year is more than five times what it was when the Labour Government left office? How can the industry adjust to its changing priorities and invest for the future after 1992 if the Government continue to maintain the highest interest rates in Europe?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman was highly implausible on the subject of interest rates when he spoke in the debate two days ago and he has got worse since. No farmer listening to those remarks is likely to conclude that a Labour Government would be of any benefit to him. Indeed, once farmers have listened to the remarks that the Leader of the Opposition is likely to make to the National Farmers Union next week, I am sure that they will conclude that they are entirely right to vote Conservative and that they will continue to do so.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend recognise that high interest rates are only one of the burdens that farmers face at present, the others being the overvaluation of the green pound and falling real output prices? Does he further recognise that the improvement in farming incomes to which he alluded was largely the result of good weather last year in both the drilling and the harvesting periods and that, in the nature of things, one cannot count on the weather for ever? When he is next contemplating moves, whether in an environmental context or in relation to straw burning, that would place additional burdens on the farming industry, will he consider very carefully this complex of burdens that the farming industry faces?

Mr. Curry: It is a fact that high interest rates create problems for all people in the business community. In that regard, farmers are no different from other business people. We are certainly at pains to minimise unnecessary burdens on farmers. That is why we are going to Brussels determined to achieve a green pound devaluation that will represent a substantial boost to the prices received by farmers in this country.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister recognise that high interest rates force people in rural communities to find other means of earning a living and that in many rural areas, particularly in Scotland, a traditional way of ekeing out a living is by catching wild fish, including salmon? Does the Minister realise that many people in Scotland have never accepted, and will never accept, the ludicrous proposition that wild fish that swim the Atlantic become private property the moment they enter a river system? In that spirit, will the Minister accept my congratulations on the Government's humiliating climbdown this week when they finally abandoned the salmon dealing licensing scheme and the absurd idea—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this relate to loan interest?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.
Does the Minister accept that having wasted the time of Parliament for two years and the time of civil servants for four years in their attempts, at the bidding of landlord interests, to create this scheme, they have finally admitted defeat and abandoned it?

Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to congratulate the Government on taking an extremely sensible decision not to erect a vast bureaucratic apparatus which would not work. That is a matter for congratulation, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker: I still think that that has nothing to do with loan interest.

Eastern Europe

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to assist the agricultural needs of eastern European countries.

Mr. Gummer: My Department is actively involved in building closer links with east European countries. As part of this involvement, I recently met the East German Minister of Agriculture in Berlin, and I hope soon to lead a group of business men on visits to Hungary and Poland.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of assisting eastern European agriculture is the kind of joint venture entered into last October by the British Sugar Corporation and the Polish foreign trade organisation on sugar? Such an arrangement increases the amount of capital going into east Europe's industry, increases its expertise, and increases its vital foreign exchange earnings. What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that more British firms invest in that sort of venture?

Mr. Gummer: Several of the business men who will accompany me to those two countries are already engaged in joint ventures, and I hope that the number of such


ventures will be increased. I have also got together a number of farming groups, farming co-operatives and farmers who hope to help those countries to re-equip their farms and run them in the efficient way of the capitalist West, as against the Socialist way that they have had up to now.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Although it is wise to help to improve agriculture in eastern Europe and make it more efficient, will the Minister always bear in mind the danger to agriculture in the European Community and the United Kingdom should the eastern European countries reach a position of having surplus agricultural produce?

Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong for us to rely on the continuation of inefficient Socialism in eastern Europe to prevent surpluses there. That has been done very satisfactorily for 40 years, but now we hope that, with the coming of freedom, east European countries will begin to feed themselves. We must take measures to protect the interests of our industry, one of which will be for industry to take a real part in the development of those countries. We should not deny them that chance. We certainly do not want the opportunities to be taken only by other countries.

Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend is next in eastern Europe, will he reflect on the fact that Socialist economies never produce enough food even to feed their own people?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is living proof of this country's ability to produce enough food. He is absolutely right: Socialism always produces shortages because it always prevents the excellent from achieving, and pushes the poorest to make them poorer.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that probably the greatest threat to the fledgling democracies in eastern Europe is a shortage of food on shop shelves? Therefore, will he give a pledge to the House that he will do everything he can at the next Council of Ministers to further the proposal to divert food in the short term to eastern Europe? Remembering that we must help those fledgling democracies to feed themselves, will he press the EC to make money available so that they can have long-term development aid, for production and marketing, to help them achieve that objective?

Mr. Gummer: I did exactly that at the latest Council and I shall continue to do so. I also intend to visit Romania and Bulgaria, as well as Czechoslovakia, to see what we should be doing directly, because we have a responsibility. All that we do must be against the background of ensuring that our producers are not unfairly disadvantaged by the arrangements introduced by the European Community. I believe that British farmers must be treated in the same way as the other farmers in the Community.

Conservation

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to stimulate conservation by farmers in upland areas.

Mr. Curry: The environmentally sensitive areas, farm woodlands and farm and conservation grant schemes provide financial help for conservation projects in the uplands and elsewhere.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to look afresh at our policy for upland areas and to devise new policies that recognise that the hill farmer is very much the engine of conservation in upland areas? Does he agree that a new policy such as the North Yorkshire moors national park farm scheme, which I hope he will launch in the spring, has a great deal to recommend it because it will link much-needed financial support to hill farmers with specific conservation measures in the uplands?

Mr. Curry: I am looking forward to opening the scheme in the North Yorkshire moors in my hon. Friend's constituency. I entirely endorse his view that economic activities and viable agriculture are the best way to conserve the uplands. I have always believed that bolting on all sorts of gadgets, environmental or otherwise, comes a long way behind a sensible cash flow in the uplands for maintaining conservation.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that farmers find it very difficult to pursue any policy because of high interest rates? Will he give a glimmer of hope to farmers that interest rates will be lowered some time this year?

Mr Curry: Interest rates are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, we are seeking a green pound devaluation to help farmers. Of course, if interest rates were to come down prematurely and the pound were then to decline, it would reopen the green pound gap. The hon. Gentleman should let me deal with what is in my parish—the green pound rate which we hope to devalue—and I shall refer his question about interest rates to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere will be appalled, although not surprised, by the attitude of the Labour party as shown yesterday by the "footling" comment of the Labour social security spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? Will my hon. Friend speculate on the ability of hill farmers to undertake conservation if their farm buildings and land were to be brought within the rating system, as proposed by the Labour party and, on occasion, by the Liberal party?

Mr. Curry: It is clear that farmers in the uplands face much natural handicap from the climate. They can do without the unnatural handicap that a Labour Government would impose upon them.

Veterinary Product Licensing

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy on the fourth criterion in veterinary product licensing.

Mr. Gummer: Public and animal health are well protected by our licensing system based on a rigorous scientific scrutiny of safety, quality and efficacy. There is no other criterion of equal value and objectivity, and to suggest otherwise is misleading.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain to the House why his Department's policy seems to have changed since his


predecessor said in March 1989 at the Hannah research institute that he would consider evidence of the need for bovine somatotropin?

Mr. Gummer: The question is about the fourth criterion. There is no fourth criterion of equal validity. The suggested criterion is merely the assumptions of various individuals' prejudices. That is not objective.

Irradiation

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response his Department has made to the women's institutes' representations on irradiation.

Mr. Maclean: Detailed replies have been sent to all the women's institutes that have contacted me. In addition, I and my expert officials, together with a member of one of the independent scientific committees that advise the Government, had a most useful meeting with representatives of the National Federation of Women's Institutes where all their questions were fully discussed.

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will already have reassured some of the women's institute members who supported the conference resolution about irradiated food not long ago. Is not world scientific opinion almost unanimous about the safety of irradiated food? If there is clear labelling, cannot the consumer choose whether to buy it?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All world expert scientific opinion that has examined irradiation, along with the independent expert committee advising the British Government, has determined that irradiated food is absolutely safe. The crucial point is the consumer's right to choose. We have every bit as much right in this country to select irradiated food as French housewives have.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although there is no test to show whether food has been irradiated, and much concern that irradiated products may be harmful, the Government are thinking of introducing maximum doses 10 times those used in the United States. Why do not the Government listen to public opinion which is overwhelmingly against irradiation?

Mr. Maclean: We are taking public opinion into account. The hon. Gentleman's comment about doses 10 times greater than those in the United States is absolutely untrue. The doses recommended are perfectly in line with what the EC Commission has recommended. World scientific opinion states that irradiation is safe. Since only 2 per cent. of the public have the right—for which we fought—to buy green top milk, surely the 66 per cent. who might want to buy irradiated food have a similar right.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the genuine fears and concerns of consumers about irradiated food. Does he agree that stringent labelling will, to a large extent, dissipate those fears, enable the consumer to make an informed choice and provide the marketing opportunity for good, fresh food?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that the crucial factor is our right as consumers to select a product based on informed choice. The

Government are determined that any irradiated food should be clearly marked with the words "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation"—[Interruption.] Since we are determined that the labelling regime will be enforced and workable—[Interruption.]—consumers' fears are groundless.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to agriculture questions and stop private conversations.

Nitrate-sensitive Areas

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on nitrate-sensitive areas.

Mr. Gummer: We are well advanced in determining the agricultural restrictions to apply in the areas concerned, and are currently examining their detailed costs. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister believe that there is more than sufficient evidence to show that nitrate pollution damages the environment and humans? Should not the Government introduce regulations to cut massively the use of nitrates in agriculture? That would also help to deal with the problem of surpluses.

Mr. Gummer: There is no evidence that the amount of nitrates in the water damages anyone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no evidence whatsoever. It is because we wish to take extremely tough measures that we have introduced those proposals. The hon. Gentleman should not make statements that have no scientific base.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that East Anglia is one of the most nitrate-sensitive areas in the country, yet is the most healthy? It is much healthier than many parts of Europe and almost certainly healthier than Wales. Will he reject all the humbug and hypochondriac statements that are uttered about this subject?

Mr. Gummer: In the past few days Labour Members have attacked British apples because they say they are poisonous, and now they say that British water is unsafe. I am surprised that they do not emigrate and eat apples and drink water elsewhere.

Irradiation

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any research evidence on the consumer demand for irradiated food.

Mr. Maclean: I have seen the results of several surveys on consumer demand for irradiated foods. A recent study by the Consumers Association found that about two thirds of consumers might wish to purchase some irradiated foods in the future. Our consumers must be allowed freedom of choice to buy any food they know is safe and must not be dictated to.

Mr. Ashley: Notwithstanding the paeons of praise for irradiation from the Minister some moments ago, may I ask him to confirm that there is great public hostility to rather than demand for irradiation? Will he also confirm that irradiation can expose food to doses of radiation up to 100 million times that of a single chest X-ray and that it can be used to hide contamination in otherwise unsaleable food?

Mr. Maclean: Irradiation cannot be used to disguise unfit food. It is illegal for unfit food to be sold now and it will be illegal in the future. I confirm that 98 per cent. of the public do not want to buy green top milk. We do not dictate to the other 2 per cent. that they cannot have it. They have a right to have it. The same applies to the 8 per cent. who are keen to buy irradiated food and to the 66 per cent. of us who might want to buy it sometimes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the president-elect of Brazil.

Mr. Maclennan: In expressing for the whole country our great joy at witnessing the unimaginable leap forward in the Soviet Union towards political pluralism and liberal democracy, may I ask the Prime Minister to give some thought to celebration by taking small steps towards reinvigorating our own democracy, although I do not suggest that she should submit herself for popular election as our president? Will she throw her weight behind greater openness and accountability by introducing a Bill of Rights and a Freedom of Information Act, by the decentralisation of government and by a fair voting system?

The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the increasing democracy in the Soviet Union and hope that the decisions taken in the past few days will be speedily implemented. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was a Bill of Rights in this country in about the 17th century.
As for decentralisation, this Government have done more to decentralise power from central Government to the people than any previous Government whether by reducing taxation, denationalising industries, allowing parents more say in schools or giving people more say in the running of their affairs.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the East German state is close to collapse, that mutinies have been reported in its army, that 3,000 people a day—or 1 million people a year—are leaving for the West and that over half its qualified doctors have left? Is not the only way in which that massive tide can be stemmed the unification of the two Germanys as quickly as possible? Will my right hon. Friend see that we do all we can to encourage the West Germans to assume responsibility for East Germany as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister: I read the same reports as my hon. Friend about conditions in East Germany after so many years of Socialist Communism and about how it is near a state of collapse. Elections are due in March. They will probably be very decisive and will probably lead to the unification of Germany. It is absolutely vital that there be a transition stage between that decision in principle and sorting out the full implications for NATO, for the

Helsinki accords and for Berlin so that the unification of Germany does not come about at the expense of security and stability in central Europe.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that while she remains in office child benefit will be universally available to all families with children?

The Prime Minister: I stand by our commitment in the manifesto which I have repeated many times. This Government stand by their commitment about child benefit in the manifesto.

Mr. Hattersley: As the promise in the manifesto has been broken for the past five years, nobody must expect anything from that answer other than the preparation for abandoning universal child benefit. Is the Prime Minister aware that many low-income families are always penalised by means-tested benefits? Does she realise that many of the family benefits that are now means tested are taken up by only 50 per cent. of those who need and deserve them? Is she aware of those facts and, if so, does she care?

The Prime Minister: This Government have put more into helping poorer families than have previous Governments. During the past two years, the extra help has been deliberately concentrated on poorer families. Had those on income support or family credit merely had an increase in child benefit, it would not have profited them because it would have come off income support or family credit. By concentrating on increased family credit and increased help for those poorer families, we have done far better by them than have other Governments.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Prime Minister runs away from answering the question about the take-up of family credit, let me invite her to answer a question not from me but from one of her Back-Bench Members that was put to her last night. How does she reconcile a policy that gives tax concessions for free medical care but holds down child benefit? What does the Prime Minister have to say to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who said that year by year the manifesto promises of his and her party look increasingly threadbare?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The manifesto stated:
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother.
That has been upheld, as I said in my answer to the previous question. This year and next year we shall be making available an extra £70 million to the neediest families through income-related benefit. That will especially help the poorest families. Fortunately, because of our tax policies we have had far more to spend on social security than any previous Government. The figure is more than £50 billion a year—more than £1 billion a weelk. We win all ends up.

Sir Peter Emery: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that budgeted increases in spending of 10, 12 or 15 per cent. for next year, if carried through by local authorities, are bound to be inflationary and are entirely contrary to Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. They would be inflationary and would lead to enormous increases in rates and to a community charge higher than


it need be. The Government have given extra support to local authorities this year of 8·5 per cent. above the similar rate support grant and the business rate last year. That is sufficient for local authorities to plan well and economically.

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Prime Minister has just welcomed and praised President Gorbachev's extraordinary achievements, but does she agree that those could be swept away by the grim and accelerating deterioration in the Soviet economy? The logic that led us to help Poland and Hungary must make the West face up to the necessity of giving aid to the Soviet Union. Will she discuss that with her EC colleagues, President Bush and President Gorbachev?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the increasing freedom of speech, discussion and movement will be swept away, but I agree that economic improvement is critical and that is much more difficult than securing political improvement, because it requires the full co-operation of people who have never had experience of running free enterprise or of taking responsibility for themselves. Any help that we could give would be only marginal. We are helping with some joint ventures, but the bureaucratic system there creates some difficulties. We are also helping by having people here for management training and by doing everything that we can in that respect. Commercial banks also have a line of credit which is not fully taken up.

Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that of all the ideas for raising local government finance, the Socialist idea of a roof tax is the most unfair, uneconomic and unworkable? It will involve constant revaluation, the erosion of local democracy and the eviction of many elderly and council tenants—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear whether the hon. Gentleman's question is in order or not. He must relate his question to the Government's responsibilities.

Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will not react positively to that proposal, and will she remember that just as the window tax forced people to live in the dark, the roof tax is likely to force them to live in sentry boxes?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not introduce a roof tax, which is based on the capital valuation of houses regardless of whether they are owned or whether a tenant lives in them. It would be grossly unfair to tenants, and in particular to pensioners. Therefore, we shall never introduce it. Moreover, as a Thatcher I object to a roof tax.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister accept that her replies on child benefit this afternoon will come as a great disappointment to 7 million families and 12 million children in Britain? Does she accept that, far from helping the poor, this year the Government's policies have saved £250 million at the expense of £70 million? Since for the past three years the Government have failed to uprate child benefit, will the Prime Minister uprate child benefit in April, taking those lost years into account, or does she intend simply to save up more money for an even more generous Budget for the rich?

The Prime Minister: As today's family expenditure survey shows, people at all income levels throughout the United Kingdom have benefited from a higher standard of living gained by Britain's increased output under a Conservative Government. The social services have benefited, too. The poorest families would not benefit from an increase in child benefit because it would come off their income support and family credit. We have chosen the best way to help the poorer families and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would prefer that, instead of which he seems to prefer child benefit going to the richest families.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: At my right hon. Friend's meeting with representatives of the New Zealand Government on Tuesday, did she take the opportunity to congratulate them on the lead that they have given to the West in abolishing agricultural subsidy? Does she believe that that excellent Conservative principle has brought benefits to the taxpayer and the consumer? Did she give the New Zealand Government the assurance that British housewives will still be able to buy New Zealand butter if they wish to do so?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I did not exactly put that point to the representatives of the New Zealand Government, but they were very grateful for the stand that we have taken in supporting them in negotiations with the European Community. Subsidies on agricultural produce will have to be negotiated in the GATT, through the European Community and with other countries that pay heavy subsidies, such as the United States and Japan.

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lamond: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity of looking at the front page of the CBI News for this month, where she will see a graph of investment intentions for next year which is plummeting even faster than the Tories' support in Mid-Staffordshire? Will she read the article inside by the director-general, who asks the Government to do certain things, including reducing interest rates, improving infrastructure and training and avoiding any more inflationary Government own goals? Is there any possibility of his being satisfied by the Budget?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen that article, but I may point out to the hon. Gentleman, that for the past


three years investment has been very high—a record in all industries and a record in manufacturing industry. That is very good. We do not take lectures from the Opposition on training. It was the trade unions who opposed the youth training scheme and the employment training scheme, both of which we have successfully brought in.
My advice to the CBI would be to keep their industries competitive, their designs good and their marketing sharp.

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy adopted by successive British Governments over a

considerable period of ensuring that we have a strong nuclear deterrent have had an influence on what is taking place in eastern Europe? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, although everyone believes in peace, to ensure peace we need a strong defence in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. A sure and strong defence, with an essential nuclear deterrent and American nuclear weapons in Europe, has made the Soviet Union realise that it could never win militarily, so it has turned round to negotiate. Had people bowed down before the Soviet Union and not kept up a strong defence, we should not have had the excellent results that we are now seeing in that country.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm 1001–1021).
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Rail Fares and Services".
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day, 1st part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party on the ambulance dispute.
Motion on the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Dr. Cunningham: Given the gathering momentum of change in the Soviet Union and in other eastern European countries, will the Leader of the House find Government time for a foreign affairs debate on these changes, which are tremendously important for all of us and which are taking place with increasing speed?
Is not the House entitled to an oral statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the report of Her Majesty's inspector of schools published a few days ago? Does not this report illustrate a quite disgraceful and totally unsatisfactory state of affairs in far too many of our schools? Would it not be appropriate for hon. Members in all parts of the House, since we are talking about the state education system, which affects more than 90 per cent. of our children, to have a chance to question his right hon. Friend on what the Government intend to do about this appalling state of affairs?
Has the Leader of the House seen the reports today forecasting increases in water bills of up to 70 per cent. for one in four people in this country? Does he recall that last year many consumers faced increases in their bills for water charges of up to 50 per cent? Does this not confirm everything that we in the Labour party said about the implications for bills of water privatisation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that next week we have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment explaining to us and our constituents why Government policy has led to these enormous increases, which have effectively doubled people's water costs in less than two years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the whole House will agree about the momentous quality of the changes taking place, not least

in the Soviet Union itself, and join in welcoming what has been happening. I certainly agree that this makes the topic of foreign affairs a legitimate one for me to try to find time to debate as soon as I reasonably can.
With regard to education, the important thing to notice is that the report of Her Majesty's inspector of schools, which is now made available in a fashion which owes a great deal to the Government's initiative, says that the overall picture is of a service in which most of what is done is of reasonable quality or better and that that is a sound basis for improvement and should be recognised as such. The Government's reforms are already bringing about the improvements necessary to raise education standards.
With regard to water charges, once again the Opposition seek to have their cake and eat it. They are very ready to complain about shortcomings in the quality and availability of water services. The charges are necessary to finance the substantial investment programme that will follow privatisation in order to meet the problems of raising water quality, renewing water mains and overcoming water shortage.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted early-day motion 412 standing in the names of 142 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House condemns the unprecedented taking of backbenchers' rare prime debating time by a Front Bench member, namely the presentation of a Ten Minute Rule Bill by the honourable Member for Livingston, Opposition Front Bench Spokesman for Health, thereby usurping a backbencher's customary prerogative; and notes that this was done on an Opposition day, when this subject could have been selected for debate at length by the Opposition.]
Does he appreciate that an Opposition Back Bencher handed over his ten-minute Bill slot to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to propose a Bill from the Opposition Front Bench? Does he realise that this muscling in on Back Benchers' customary prerogatives is unprecedented in over 20 years?

Hon. Members: Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate.

Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer this disgraceful business to the Committee on Procedure?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Opposition must be left to sort out their own problems. It is entirely a matter for them to decide whether they should muscle in upon each other in this way. Government Members can only look on with amazement and astonishment.

Sir David Steel: What are the chances of a debate on early-day motion 448, calling for a wider inquiry into misuse of information by Crown servants?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to set up the fullest possible inquiry into allegations made by Right honourable and honourable Members of this House concerning the misuse of information by Crown servants apparently operating outside the rule of law; believes that the appropriate precedent for such an inquiry is the 1983 Review by a Committee of Privy Councillors into the circumstances leading up to the Falklands War; notes that such a committee in accordance with the Franks precedent


would have full access to persons and papers in the security services, the armed forces, and all Government departments; and urges the Government to replace the narrow Calcutt inquiry by this much wider and deeper review.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Defence has told the press that the inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence will be limited in scope? Is he also aware that, moreover, Mr. Colin Wallace has questioned the accuracy of some of the statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence to the House only last week? Will he therefore realise the urgency of this matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is a field in which debates and inquiries seem to have proliferated to a large extent already. An Adjournment debate on the subject was initiated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on 6 February and it has been announced by the Secretary of State for Defence that two inquiries are already taking place and the Defence Committee has indicated its intention of making inquiries. We shall have to wait and see the terms of reference of that inquiry.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point): Bearing in mind the growing concern in this country and overseas about what is happening to the global environment, and in particular to the rain forests, highlighted by the remarkable address given by the Prince of Wales at Kew gardens to an audience which included hon. Members from both sides of the House, is it possible to have an early debate on that vastly important matter? It affects us all and it will affect our children and our children's children.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend knows, that subject has concerned the House and the Government for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment took some important messages in respect of it during his visit to Brazil during the summer. We have also had the opportunity to discuss the issue during the visit to this country, yesterday and today of the President-elect of Brazil.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the proposal to establish a new forest in the midlands, to be situated in Leicestershire, which is the second bottom county in the country for its number of trees? If it is established in north-west Leicestershire, it will serve all our constituents in the county. May we please have a debate on this subject as soon as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated characteristic ingenuity in drawing attention to this problem in the context of his constituency. I cannot promise to take the matter further at this stage.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the constitutional position of taxes raised in Scotland that differ from the taxes to be levied in England and Wales? In so doing, will he consider carefully the proposals for the roof tax, the effect that it will have on the unified business rates proposals, and the proposal for having regular revaluations done by computer, and all that that will mean for the people of Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend has already done a service by drawing attention to the

horrendous implications for Scotland of the roof tax proposed by the Opposition. Voters in the rest of the United Kingdom will view with anxiety the implications of that proposal.

Mr. Max Madden: As the threat of war in Kashmir will not wait for a foreign affairs debate, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week outlining what initiatives the British Government may be able to take to bring the Governments of India and Pakistan together to try to resolve the dispute, which has caused great conflict between those two countries for more than 20 years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman refers to a matter which is a cause of continuing anxiety to friends of India and Pakistan. I know that the Government, at every level, have always sought to do everything they can to promote peace rather than conflict in that area, and I am sure they will continue to do so. I cannot promise an early statement.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Would my right hon. and learned Friend allow an early debate on the criteria for setting the community charge by local authorities, bearing in mind the spiteful approach of Labour authorities, such as Southwark and Ealing, which intend to set the charge disgracefully and unacceptably high? In Ealing, the figure that the authority is proposing to set would mean a 300 per cent. increase in rates in four years. Is that not a disgrace?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The shape of the community charge has been frequently debated in recent weeks in the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the most effective response to the matter about which he complains would be a vigorous response by the electors of Ealing to those complaints.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide an early debate in Government time on the plight of low-paid workers—for example, the fish processing workers in my constituency who are paid less than £100 for a 40-hour week and now face a zero wage round—that is, no wage increase in the current year? In such a debate, would it be appropriate, in the interest of equity and justice, to compare their position with that of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is coining £100,000 for a two-day week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman attaches that much importance to either of those topics, it is surprising that his party has not chosen them for debate next week.

Mr. John Marshall: When the Hetherington report was published, the Government said that they would listen to the views of the House. As it is nearly eight weeks since the House overwhelmingly endorsed the views of the Hetherington report, when does my right hon. and learned Friend expect that we shall be able to debate the Second Reading of a Bill on the matter? May we at least be promised a Bill this month?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the matter, as I have already answered questions from him about it. The position remains the same. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering the form that legislation


might take in the light of the views expressed in both Houses. We must now await the announcement from my right hon. Friend that should be forthcoming shortly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there will be a debate a week on Monday on the ambulance workers' pay and take into account the fact that there should be a statement before that debate to pay tribute to those ambulance workers who marched 200 miles from Barnsley to London today, calling at places such as Kegworth, where there was a major accident and ambulance workers played a part in rescuing the victims, and King's Cross? Will he also ask the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) to be in his place during that debate so that he and the other 200 Tory Back Benchers who are making money on the side—up to £200,000 on top of their parliamentary pay—can explain why they can march into the Lobby objecting to more than 6·5 per cent. for the ambulance workers while picking up large sums of money on the side?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that the rules of the House permit any Member on either side of the House to accept employment in addition to that as a Back Bencher, provided that it is registered according to the rules of the House. That has been the position for many years. Everyone is always ready to pay tribute to those members of the ambulance service who are performing their normal duties or who respond to the call of duty. The most important call for them to respond to at present is the call to return to normal working on the terms that have been available to them for months.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: A few moments ago my right hon. and learned Friend sounded almost benign in response to a request for a debate on early-day motion 448, standing in my name and calling for the fullest possible inquiry into the Wallace affair. He seemed to be dismissing it simply on the ground that there were other inquiries in progress. Therefore, will he clarify one important aspect of Government policy on this matter? Will the Government fully co-operate with the Defence Select Committee's inquiry, and will that co-operation include granting immunity from prosecution to those Crown servants and former Crown servants who may be called to give evidence?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In regard to my hon. Friend's initial point, the position was made clear in a debate earlier this week in the brief reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. In regard to the response to the Defence Select Committee's inquiry, any requests made by that Committee, once it has settled its terms of reference, will be considered in the ordinary way.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on the newly published Register of Members' Interests, which does not list the lavish outside moonlighting of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)? As the Leader of the House is concerned about the rules, if we had a debate about the Register of Members' Interests and the way in which Tory Members of Parliament earn huge sums outside but vote against ordinary working people getting decent wage increases, we could expose them for their double standards and we might achieve a change in the rules so that people here worked full-time.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Full or part-time membership of the House has been discussed and debated many times. The form of the register is the consequence of decisions taken by the House, and it takes some time for it to record newly adopted occupations.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Reverting to the first question asked this afternoon by the shadow Leader of the House, on a day when the House has welcomed an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from the Soviet Union that has been involved in remarkably frank and open exchanges with 90 hon. Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend, will he accept the urging from behind him that we should find time to discuss as soon as possible the important change in the international situation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in recognising the importance of the IPU delegation from the Soviet Union, the leader of which I had the privilege of meeting. That is one reason for attaching importance to the possibility of an early debate on foreign affairs. I shall do my best to keep it in mind.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House seen the petition that was presented to the Prime Minister yesterday by the Save British Science group? It was signed by 1,600 scientists who now work abroad because of the lack of Government commitment to science and because of the lack of money and facilities. As the future of Britain depends on science, and as we are not recruiting but losing scientists, may we debate the matter next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on that topic, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that our ability to retain scientists and other experts has been enhanced substantially by the steady record of economic growth achieved under this Government in the past decade.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many Conservative Members, and certainly many Opposition Members, do not understand the Government's reluctance to hold a wider inquiry into the allegations made by Mr. Wallace and by right hon. and hon. Members? Many hon. Members would like to see those fundamental allegations, which strike at our liberal democracy, exorcised, and we look to the Government to facilitate that. We suggest That a Franks-type inquiry, as used in connection with the Falklands war, would be the best way of exorcising those grave allegations.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's continuing interest in that matter and in the wider context. The fact remains that there have been, and there are now in progress, a series of inquiries into virtually every aspect of this matter.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: May I underline the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and by the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for an early debate in Government time on eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and what is happening there? Some hon. Members have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting the Soviet delegation, who have been open and frank. I do not


necessarily agree with everything that it said, but we need a debate at the earliest possible moment to discuss eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the future of Europe.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already intimated my sympathy with that proposition. It was a proposition with which I had sympathy in my previous job; my change of job and, more important, the change of circumstances in the Soviet Union add force to the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that last Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) introduced the Interest on Debts Bill, which was talked out? As its purpose was to help small businesses with the late payment of debts, and given the Government's commitment to small businesses, will he say whether the Government have any plans to help small businesses, which are very concerned about the present position?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: A range of Government policies are designed to help small businesses, but I cannot make any specific commitment in relation to that Bill. My hon. Friend will know that there is room for more than one view, even from the small business lobby, about the merits of that Bill.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary whether he has received a report on the recent disturbances in Toxteth? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether he will pay a visit to the area, where there have been three disturbances in fewer than eight years'?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to answer for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's points to his attention.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the somewhat surprising decision by the Government to allow women to serve in warships and to take part in combat? Does he agree that the idea of women fighting is distasteful and abhorrent?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The topic was vouchsafed to the House only a few days ago, at the beginning of the week. My hon. Friend may not have had an opportunity to raise it in that debate, but I am sure that he will find another opportunity in one of the armed services debates which will be arranged in due course.

Mr. Alan Meale: The Leader of the House is aware that there is concern among hon. Members of all parties about religious cults. Is he also aware that there is far more concern following the knowledge, acquired last week, that many of those organisations, such as the Moonies, will be exempt from paying poll tax, whereas pensioners, the unemployed and the severely disabled will have to pay up to 80 per cent.? Will he or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement so that the matter can be discussed in the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the same problem created difficulties and anxieties under the rating system. The definition of the frontier has always been difficult. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point on the community charge to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the escalation of IRA violence in the past few days, including not only attempts on the lives of public representatives and of members of the security forces, but the third breach of security at Short Brothers? Does he realise that, if that continues, it will jeopardise the operation at Shorts, and will bring vast unemployment to east Belfast and to the rest of the Province? Is he aware that the IRA has now said that notice will no longer be given of bombs laid at Shorts? That has caused great anxiety among the work force.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been concerned continuously about threats to human life and safety, and about security more generally in Northern Ireland. I shall take account of the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman has described and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that he may take account of them in practice and in the regular reports on terrorist violence that he makes to the House.

Mr. David Clelland: Although the House will welcome the news that there is to be a foreign affairs debate on the implications of improving East-West relations, may we also have a debate on the defence implications? Given the inevitability of reductions in arms procurement, we can then begin to plan a proper product conversion programme so that the skills of those who work in the industry will be preserved and so that the livelihoods of those who work in the industry and of their families will also be preserved.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It may or may not be an important point, but it could have been raised in the Royal Navy debate earlier this week and it can also be raised in subsequent debates on the other services in due course.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on early-day motion 345?
It was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and has been signed by 123 hon. Members. It is headed, "Concern over media freedom in Romania".
[That this House views with concern reports from Romania that democratic opposition parties in that country are being denied access to the nation's television network; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest possible representations to the new Romanian Government in support of the right of access to the nation's media by the major opposition parties; and recognises the serious possibility of renewed bloodshed and turmoil if this basic right is not recognised.]
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that today I spoke to John Kennedy, who is an expert on Romania? He made to me a number of disturbing points. First, President Iliescu has personally banned the publication of opposition newspapers. Secondly, a number of opposition politicians and parties, including those supporting the restoration of the monarchy, have been prevented from


appearing on television and on other media. Thirdly, the media have been used to call the population to take to the streets to stop anti-Government demonstrations. Surely any aid or assistance given to Romania should be tied to the condition that there should be free media. May we have a debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House, with its continuing interest in the changes in Romania, will share my hon. Friend's concern, which was also expressed in early-day motion 345. Access to the media, whether printed or broadcast, in Romania should be available to all who seek to take part in the democracy which we hope to see emerge. Assistance undertaken by the European Community to countries such as Romania is related closely to the extent to which they are or are not moving effectively in the direction of democracy.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House on why he is allowing Ministry of Defence police to be removed from Bishopton royal ordnance factory and be replaced by a private security force? Does he realise that it is causing tremendous consternation in my constituency that an unarmed private security force will mount guard in a huge area of my constituency? We are worried about the proposals. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot instantly arrange for a statement by my right hon. Friend. However, I can make sure that the matter is drawn to his attention for his consideration.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the Wallace case are widely shared on these Benches? In our view, the proposal for an investigation by a committee of Privy Councillors appears to be the most appropriate course of action. Will he also consider widening the terms of reference of the inquiry by my eminent constituent David Calcutt? The matter will not go away, and many of us believe that it will not go away until it is cleared up.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told other hon. Members, a wide range of inquiries have taken place or are taking place. They include the inquiry being undertaken by the master of Magdalene college.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does Parliament have to wait for 11 days to debate the ambulance dispute? Is the Leader of the House aware of the great anxiety throughout the north-west of England in all towns and communities, both in rural areas and inner cities, about this long-standing dispute, which should have been resolved by the Government? Could not the Government, even at this late stage, make some move, particularly as the morale of the ambulance workers is extremely high, as witnessed today by those of us who met them outside the House? Why cannot we have an emergency statement next Monday and some flexibility and movement by the Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: For several reasons. First, the Government have already shown a great deal of flexibility in this dispute. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of

Health Service workers have long since accepted terms consistent with those which have been available to the ambulance men for a long time. The best and only answer is for the ambulance men to recognise the growing reality of the need to return to work on those terms. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman had wanted to debate the subject, he could have persuaded his own party to do so on its Supply day next week.

Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that last year the House took a great deal of time to consider a Government proposal, which was broadly welcomed by both Conservative and Opposition Members, to introduce a complaints procedure, a commissioner and a tribunal for the Security Service. Is he aware that the new Security Service tribunal has declined to accept or consider any complaint against the Security Service relating to events prior to 18 December 1989? Is he also aware that that is a mockery of the Act that was passed last year? Will he undertake to bring the matter to the notice of his colleagues and to arrange a debate in the House at the earliest possible moment? Some of us believe that that abuse is a deliberate attempt to prevent the Security Service commissioner and his tribunal from undertaking the duties set out in the Act.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should hesitate to use the words "abuse" or "mockery" about the construction put on an Act of Parliament by those responsible for complying with it. All I can do is to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Dr. Kim Howells: In the light of severe flooding during the past two weeks in many parts of Britain, and particularly the problems in my constituency of Pontypridd last night when dozens of my constituents were forced to abandon their homes and suffered damage, will the Leader of the House consider setting aside time to discuss measures to clarify who has responsibility to build defences against floods? My efforts to do so have resulted in the National Rivers Authority saying that it is the responsibility of local authorities, usually the highways authorities, whereas highways authorities say that it is the responsibility of the NRA. Will the Government enable us to clarify the position, because my constituents and thousands of others are sick of the damage that they have to endure every time there is heavy rain?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the damage caused in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because we must await the detailed reports of the consequences of that outbreak of trouble. However, I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's general point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for further examination.

Mr. Roger King: Although. I welcome next Wednesday's Opposition motion on the railways—when some of us could take the opportunity to highlight the £37 million electrification scheme for the Birmingham cross-city line from mid-Staffordshire to Redditch—will my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless have a quiet talk with the shadow Leader of the House with a view to changing the subject of that debate and perhaps sending out a search party to find the


hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) so that he could present a debate on the English roof tax and some of us may have an idea of what we are up against?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suspect that the hunt for the dreadful truth about the dreadful roof tax will leave even the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) with no hiding place from the truth.

Ms. Diane Abbott: In response to earlier questions about the Colin Wallace affair, the Leader of the House kindly informed the House that nearly every aspect of the affair was subject to some kind of inquiry. That is certainly true, but does he agree that one aspect of the affair that is not subject to any kind of inquiry is the existence and the scope of any Clockwork Orange? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the question of setting up an appropriate committee of Privy Councillors?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In response to earlier questions, I have said that many aspects of that matter have already been the subject of investigation and a number of investigations are still taking place. I am not in a position to offer any further inquiry beyond those already in prospect.

Mr John Wilkinson: Since it is from this House alone that the authority and legitimacy of Government derives, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it perfectly plain to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that it would not be acceptable for the Secretary of State for Defence to seek to prevent from attending any Crown servant whom the Select Committee on Defence may summon to give evidence on the Wallace affair?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Recognised rules and conventions govern the resolution of such questions and must take account of the potential danger to human life from certain aspects of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be complying with those rules and conventions.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of the extensive public support that has been expressed for my Protection of Badger Setts Bill? Do the Government intend to support the Bill when it comes up for Second Reading? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that hon. Members of all parties receive a considerable amount of correspondence and have various representations made to them by their constituents about all areas of animal conservation, and especially about elephants, the ivory stocks in Hong Kong, whales and porpoises? All hon. Members know that to be true. Please may we have a general full-day debate in Government time on animal conservation so that all hon. Members can give vent to the various concerns that they have been expressing?
May I ask the Leader of the House not to continue to encourage me to put in for an Adjournment debate, because I have done that every week for the past 12 weeks and have got nowhere? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could use some influence.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must commiserate with the hon. Gentleman in that respect, because he will see that one of

his hon. Friends has an Adjournment debate next Friday on Government policy on the ivory trade and the threat to the African elephant. In that sense, he will be shooting one of the hon. Gentleman's foxes. The hon. Gentleman continues to raise many such topics conscientiously in the House, and I shall certainly bear in mind his assiduity and the wider merits of the case.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Bearing in mind the continuing turbulent weather conditions, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the House to consider some of the public safety issues that have become apparent during the storms? Is he aware of the dangers of improperly loaded commercial vehicles, badly fitted scaffolding and cladding, and loose metal signs, all of which have become potentially lethal missiles in high winds? They should have been made secure, but were not. Should not this matter receive urgent attention?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It certainly should receive urgent attention—probably more urgent and more widespread attention than this House is likely to be able to give it. People who have property, equipment or vehicles to look after should be taking very careful note of it.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting next to the Leader of the House, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to us why, when the severe weather conditions were first experienced in England a couple of weeks ago, the Department of the Environment was able to furnish the House with an immediate oral statement—on the Friday—whereas, today, the Scottish Office, so far as we can see, has made no effort to make an oral statement? Indeed, there will be only a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about his part of the country. May we have from the Scottish Office an early oral statement about the severe conditions being experienced in many parts of the country, not least the Highlands, with specific reference to the fact that the so-called Bellwin formula for recompensing local authorities fails to take account of the distinctive geographical problems that the Scottish Highlands are experiencing?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I was receiving the hon. Gentleman's question through one ear, I was receiving the answer from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland through the other. The heart of that answer is that the criteria that apply in Scotland are exactly the same as those that apply in the rest of the kingdom, and they will be upheld by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received through the normal channels any representations from the Opposition Front Bench concerning early-day motion 447?
[That this House views with horror the statement of Mr. Kuomba Balogun, Chairman of the Bristol West Labour Party, reported in the Bristol Evening Post of 2nd February, as follows: 'We make a public plea to the IRA to consider ways of strongly giving some assistance to the armed wing of the ANC in the same light as Colonel Gaddaffi sought to assist in the liberation of the people of Ireland'; calls on the Leader of the Opposition to condemn this incitement to


violence in South Africa and its implied support for Libyan and IRA terrorism in the United Kingdom; and calls on him to expel Mr. Balogun from the Labour party forthwith.]
It alleges that, in the Bristol Evening Post, the Bristol, West Labour party has been supporting IRA and Libyan terrorism. I should have thought that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen would like to deny that allegation and to repudiate that constituency party.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this matter will give the Labour party an opportunity to answer the allegation one way or the other.

Mr. Harry Cohen: With fares rising faster than the rate of inflation, and with the threat of continuing cuts in bus services, including services in my constituency of Leyton, may we have a debate on London Regional Transport? It is now a year since the debate on the LRT levy order. The Government seem to be using the disappearance of the levy order as an excuse not to have a debate, even though it is still reflected in the poll tax that Londoners have to pay. During the passage of the London Regional Transport Act, commitments were given by the Government. I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill, and I can tell the House that the Government, when they took power away from the GLC, said that there would be accountability to this House. May we have a debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself within the rules of order to enable him to deal with those topics in the debate that is to take place next week.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please avoid wasting the time of the House? Will he avoid over-burdening further an already heavy legislative programme by attempting to implement the recommendations of the Hetherington inquiry? Is he aware that opinion against that inquiry and its recommendations has hardened since the matter came before the two Houses of Parliament? I assure him that if he attempts to get it through this House the opposition will be very strong indeed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House and me of the strength of his own insight into this matter. It is not to be dismissed; it has to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I have to take seriously the fact that a very large majority in this House voted in favour of the motion that dealt with this matter before Christmas. As I have said already, we must await the announcement that will come shortly from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the two private Bills that are currently blocked—the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Bill? They relate to two of the 60 trust ports whose level of operation is restricted by their legal basis. Those two ports are trying to change that,

following the abolition of the dock labour scheme, in order to meet the challenge of 1992. Do the Government have it in mind to bring forward in the near future legislation to enable ports to convert to the private sector so that they can maximise their expansion plans and have a much better ports industry ready for the challenge of 1992?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the general request made by my hon. Friend. On the other hand, as Leader of the House, I have no direct responsibility for private business, which falls within the empire of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He will no doubt take account of his responsibility in the matter.

Ms. Joan Walley: May I remind the Leader of the House that barely a week goes by without a complaint being made about the way in which the Palace of Westminster is run? The last time it was necessary for me to rise during business questions, I spoke about masonry falling off the House of Commons. This week I have been down to the cellars. Will the Leader of the House liaise at the earliest opportunity with the Serjeant at Arms? Will he investigate the toxic paint which is being used on some paintwork in the cellars? Will he investigate the fumes which are going into the kitchens and the conditions in which the House of Commons catering and refreshment staff are working? Will he then allow Government time for a debate on the urgent need to remove Crown immunity from the Palace of Westmister?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously I cannot be expected to deal with all those matters with promptitude, but I share the hon. Lady's concern about many aspects of the management of the Palace of Westminster which, as I have said before, owes a great deal to the long history and limited geography of the place. I shall investigate the matter that she has raised this afternoon.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the six motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Opposition Day

[STATE THE ALLOTTED DAY]

Scottish Economy

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the failure of the Government's economic policy in Scotland which has resulted in relative economic decline, unacceptable levels of unemployment and inadequate industrial investment, has involved a perverse determination to reduce regional incentives, and has neither protected vital areas of Scottish industry and commerce from the effects of high interest rates, nor properly prepared for the testing challenge that will come with the Single European Market in 1992.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dewar: The debate has been called for by the Labour party to reflect the widespread concern and anxiety about the state and performance of the Scottish economy. I make that point because I understand from almost every member of the Scottish press to whom I have spoken today that they have been enthusiastically briefed by the Scottish Tory Whip to the effect that the Secretary of State is hellbent on a debate about local government finance. I hope that he will think better of that. The vital issues of investment, jobs and the country's economic performance are the subjects of today's debate.
The Secretary of State ought also to think of the workers who have been involved over the last two or three months in redundancies or threatened redundancies; many of them have been in contact with hon. Members. I am thinking of what has arisen in Philips of Bishopbriggs, Weir pumps, Lowndes Queensway plc, House of Fraser administration offices, Peterhead Engineering and Redpath Dorman Long. In almost every area there has been bad news as high interest rates bite. We owe it to those people and to their communities to take a serious look at our economic performance.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): If the hon. Gentleman believes that the economy is in crisis and that this is a major debate, can he explain why only 10 of the 49 Scottish Labour Members are in the House?

Mr. Dewar: There are several places where hon. Members may be legitimately, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Of course, he is very strongly supported by two Scottish Conservatives. I have no doubt that that was a good point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new smart-Alick role with which he has been entertaining the Scottish public, but I do not think it does much for the seriousness of the debate.
If, at some future date, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have a debate about the poll tax, the division, bitterness and injustice that it has brought in its wake, and how to replace it with a sensible and solid scheme, I should be delighted to have one, and would look forward to it and to coming well out of it.
Economic forecasting is always a subjective art. There is a traditional flurry of reports on a quarterly basis. In recent months I have had some amusement from seeing, within a few brief weeks, the Fraser of Allander Institute being attacked with vim and vigour by the Minister and then, almost immediately afterwards, being clutched to him as a shield and buckler because another document happened to suit his brief at that time.
I accept that, because such forecasting is subjective, one can usually find something to give comfort in almost any of the reports. The one on which I wish to concentrate today comes from a good pedigree and a longer perspective. The report was produced by the industry and enterprise development directorate of the Scottish Development Agency in November 1989. It is an authoritative substantial description and analysis of our economic performance. It was not written with any wish to embarrass the Government. It is written with a degree of objectivity which makes it of particular interest to the House.
The report flatly contradicts many of the Minister's assumptions about the health of the economy about which we have heard so much in recent months. I shall summarise its main message:
While aggregate output has increased, the Scottish economy has experienced a prolonged period of relative decline. There is no evidence that this has been reversed during the 1980s. Indeed, it is not fully participating in the UK's economic recovery and its relative position has further deteriorated during the 1980s. For example, over the period 1983–88, UK output rose by 21 per cent. and employment by 8 per cent.; the equivalent figures for Scotland are 15 per cent. and minus 0·1 per cent. UK growth is heavily concentrated in Southern England. As job opportunities have appeared in the South, so net out-migration from Scotland has increased reaching over 20,000 in 1988.
The report goes on to comment on the disappointing position of Scotland in a number of the league tables on unemployment and productivity with which we are so familiar. It comments on the fact that the average household income is 86 per cent. of the UK average.
The following amazing sentence, underlined in my copy, states:
Scotland remains locked into the process of relative economic decline compared to the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.
I shall give another quote, from near the end of the paper, which also summarises its theme:
The paper demonstrates the long-term relative decline of the Scottish economy. It has been unable to generate sufficient new output in employment to match the available labour supply. Consequently, Scotland has experienced high net out-migration, population decline and high unemployment. The contribution of indigenously based industry has been particularly disappointing.
There is no evidence that Scotland has or is about to break out of this process of relative decline.
That is put in restrained terms that are sober but contain an unmistakable message: we face major difficulties, there are worrying long-term trends and the Government's policy has failed on a series of vital objectives and issues.
The Opposition believe that there has to be a partnership between Government, industry and the community. The Government cannot stand back, take a hands-off attitude and leave it to the market. To the credit of the Secretary of State, I believe that he is a reluctant convert to that attitude. However, these days he is surrounded by zealots and has succumbed. In the key parts of the report, the case for concern and for the prosecution is substantial.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the substance of the report, which is by an official within the SDA, was reported in, I think, the Glasgow Herald on 12 December last year? It was riot endorsed by the SDA board, precisely because it disagreed with many of its views. Is he aware that the period of economic decline to which he referred started, according to the report, in 1955, not 1979?

Mr. Dewar: I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that this is a genuine document that represents research done in the Scottish Development Agency. As the Secretary of State knows, the SDA is an organisation which he and his Ministers often laud as an important part of the Government's machinery. Its expertise is something on which they often rely. I am delighted to know that this represents the position of officials in the SDA, at whom I do not sneer. Naturally, it looks at long-term trends. I do not disguise that; indeed, that is one of its virtues. I said that it had wider perspectives, which gives it a certain objectivity and authority, and I hope that the Minister recognises that.
The investment figures for Scotland are not good enough. I quote from that document again, and I assume that the Secretary of State, who may have disagreements about the interpretation placed on the facts, will not quarrel with the facts themselves:
Despite the recovery since the early 1980s, manufacturing output remains below the 1973 peak. Output has risen dramatically in electronics and instrument engineering, but few other sectors have yet surpassed their 1973 production levels. Some, including metal manufacturing and mechanical engineering, have shown little sign of recovery.
That is a different interpretation of the facts and figures than we normally get from Ministers and it is cause for concern.
I was told in a written answer on 31 January that gross domestic fixed capital formation was running, in cash terms, in 1985 at £861 million; in 1986 at £788 million; and in 1987 at £738 million. For reasons that are not clear to me, I was told that it was impossible to apply the inflator and produce the figures in constant prices. But even in cash terms, they are alarming enough.
We have the extraordinary situation that regional preferential assistance to industry in Scotland—I am now dealing in constant, 1988–89, prices—has more than halved since 1978–79, when it was £349 million. In 1988–89 it was £151·2 million. It is sad to note that, according to the public expenditure White Paper, the intention is that that decline should continue.
My hon. Friends and I do not see the point of asking industry to do more with less. The problems will mount because in Europe we shall have difficulties, with the new arrangements for objective 1 areas—none of which are in Scotland—creaming off about 80 per cent. of the structural funds. That puts a premium on Government effort, and that effort has not been forthcoming. From the way in which regional incentives have been ruthlessly dismantled, the Government's policy amounts to a dereliction of duty.
The impact of all that, as hon. Members in all parts of the House know—even some who are comparative strangers to Scottish economic debates—results in our having an unemployment rate which remains persistently 50 per cent. above the British average.
Another index about which Ministers often talk is wages. The rates for full-time male employees on adult rates, taking weekly wages in Scotland as a percentage of

those in the south-east of England, reveal a stark picture. In 1984—I take that base year because I am advised by the Library that before then there was a difference in the basis of compilation, so in fairness 1984 is the best starting point—the Scottish wage was 90·2 per cent. of that in the south-east. In 1989 it was 80·4 per cent., a drop of about 10 per cent.
Compared with Britain as a whole, the Scottish rate was 99·9 per cent. in 1984—almost certainly due to the impact of oil wages, but at least satisfactory in that it was almost at the British average—but by 1989 it had tumbled to 93·2 per cent. Net migration is also a constant source of worry to all who have the interests of the Scottish economy at heart.

Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Gentleman seems to have left the question of investment without referring to inward investment. In particular, he did not refer to a written answer that he received on 1 February from the Department of Trade and Industry which, in a table, showed under inward investment in 1979 in Scotland new and safeguarded jobs totalling 2,757. I presume that he made no reference to the figures given in that answer because they did not fit his case, for by 1988 the figure of new and safeguarded jobs had reached 7,370.

Mr. Dewar: I am flattered and delighted that the hon. Gentleman reads my parliamentary questions with such interest. If I were not a man of trusting faith, I could almost have imagined that someone had drawn it to his attention. In case that is so, I draw to his attention the excellent debates in the Standing Committee on the Enterprise and New Towns Bill, when we dealt with that issue at some length. Perhaps he would like to read also the report of the National Audit Office, which strongly criticised the presentation of the figures by the Scottish Office. He might then have a more rounded, balanced view of those matters than one can obtain from reading a slip of paper from the Whips' Office.
I was about to refer to net migration. The Scottish Development Agency report stated:
It is widely expected that in Scotland manufacturing employment will continue to decline, private services will grow more slowly than the UK average and that the economy will underperform UK growth rates. Based on past relative performance within a UK annual growth rate of 2–3 per cent., Scotland would not generate sufficient employment to bring any substantial fall in unemployment. Nevertheless"—
this is the good news, I suppose—
unemployment would fall to somewhere near 7·5 per cent."—
now the bad news—
due to continuing out-migration to Southern England.
It is a mark of concern that the Registrar General's projections—which I admit are raw statistics—for the population of Scotland in the year 2027, which is not far away, is about 500,000 lower than at present. I accept that many things will distort that projection, but there is no doubt that we are in danger of paying a high price for our failure to hold our own population and to attract the type of industry that gives us a base for future prosperity.

Mr. Rifkind: We are all concerned about migration, but is the hon. Gentleman unaware that in 1988–89, the last financial year, net migration from Scotland was the lowest of any year since 1975? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on migration, should not he refer to that fact as well?

Mr. Dewar: I am perfectly prepared to accept that correction from the Secretary of State for that one year, if he will accept the general picture that I have recorded. We are in a serious position, and the long-term trend is still of the type that I have described.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also draw to the attention of the House the fact that, during the two periods of Labour Government in the 1960s and the 1970s, net migration—not just to the remainder of the United Kingdom but overseas—totalled 150,000.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister makes an extremely valid point. The problem has been running for a long time. I object to the fact that we are constantly told by Ministers that we have nothing to worry about and that the corner has been turned. There is a complacency that borders on folly about the way that Ministers deal with those matters. We are right to point to the results of Government policy and high interest rates. Yesterday, the National Farmers Union of Scotland was worrying about investment in its industry—a different but nevertheless important industry, but it could be almost any sector of the Scottish economic scene.
There is also the problem of geography. That is not a fatal impediment to success in these days of high technology, but it must be overcome with Government help for the infrastructure of the country. We hear a great deal of the challenge of 1992. I sometimes think back to the days when we were campaigning—and I was campaigning for the yes vote—in the referendum on the Common Market. We talked about the challenge and the opportunities. However, what has happened is that the United Kingdom is now running a balance of trade deficit with the other members of the EEC of about £14,000 million. Clearly, if we are to put that right after 1992, we shall have to take a tumble to ourselves.
There has been reference to a report produced by the university of Louvain for the European Commission. It is of particular interest to Scots because one area that it studied was the Strathclyde region. It makes depressing reading. It talks about technological backwardness, of training not in touch with technical developments and of the dangers of areas such as Strathclyde being marginalised. From the report it was obvious that Britain and Spain were at one end of the scale while France, Germany and Belgium were at the other. That is a great worry for people such as myself, and I hope for Ministers also.
The SDA report spoke of the shake-up that may come and the fact that we have already had an enormous loss of control over industry and commerce in Scotland. It said:
The corporate base and therefore growth capacity has been continuously eroded by the external acquisition of Scottish companies. Between 1983 and 1986"—
part of the time when the Conservative Government were in power—
321 Scottish companies were taken over by non-Scottish companies. They tended to include the faster growing and better performing companies. In total these companies accounted for about 7 per cent. of the Scottish GDP.
On the basis of those statistics, we have a real problem.
Nothing that we heard from the Minister in Committee leads us to expect that our problems will be solved by the restructuring and emergence of Scottish Enterprise, particularly a Scottish Enterprise working, apparently, a standstill budget.
Under-investment in transport is particularly highlighted in the Louvain university report, and there are the problems of the Channel tunnel. There are obvious worries and no guarantees of the kind of investment that will give us the links we need if we are to get into the European markets efficiently and effectively. If we do not, the long-term trends to which I have been referring will be very worrying indeed
I put it no higher than to say that I sometimes think we are a little complacent about our export record. The SDA report says:
The real value of manufacturing exports remains below the 1978 peak, and outwith whisky and office machinery/data processing equipment Scottish industry remains less export orientated than the UK as a whole.
We tend to sit back on the basis of some rather superficial figures and to think that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
In particular, will the Minister turn his attention when he replies to the anxiety about the steel industry? That is not just of symbolic importance; it is part of Britain's core manufacturing industry. Our fear is that the Government have not so much abandoned responsibility—that might be unfair—as that they abandoned their ability to influence events when they privatised the industry.
I do not doubt for a moment that the Secretary of State is concerned—he has good cause for concern—but it is not so clear that he speaks for his colleagues. There was a now well-known and rather notorious exchange during questions to the Department of Trade and Industry the other day when the Secretary of State made it clear that he believed that the only test that should properly be applied is the commercial interests of British Steel. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will take this opportunity of dissociating himself from that narrow view. We cannot have a Government who assume the role of a curious, even if anxious, spectator to what is happening to such an important industry.
As we know, there are pressure points in the strip mill at Ravenscraig, the plate mill at Dalziel, tubes at Clydesdale and at Imperial. This would be a good opportunity for the Government to give us a progress report. There is a strong case for the industry. The market in steel will recover and we need that capacity.
My opinion may not be persuasive on that and on a number of other issues, but let me draw the Secretary of State's attention to the autumn report of Cambridge Econometrics which refers to a net output stagnation in the steel industry during 1990, but suggests that output growth will be strong in 1991 as export markets revive. The long-term forecast talks about output growing steadily.
There is a good deal of evidence that the United Kingdom, and perhaps even Europe, will need the capacity in the Scottish steel industry in the period that lies ahead. It will be a tragedy if the narrow commercial and perhaps short-term interests of British Steel were the only test to be considered in deciding its fate.
We remain convinced that there is a need for investment, particularly in the mill at Clydesdale. Great efforts have been made to find new markets and it would be a scandal if we were to go out of tubes, and the North sea were to be supplied not only from outside Scotland but from outside the United Kingdom.
There are many rumours about a French connection. We should like to know whether the Government are monitoring the situation. Are they involved? Are they


pressing for investment, not only in the mill but in the more immediate modest package that has been urged by the plant which would give it a competitive edge and boost morale? Has it been made clear to British Steel that regional incentives would be available for such investment?
The point—I do not want to go into too long a passage when my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is here—also applies at Ravenscraig, where a proposal for automatic roll change gear and other relatively modest but very important and competitive investments is on the table, and the best that we can get out of British Steel is that it may be considered; this has not been said in as positive a tone as we should like. I very much hope that the Secretary of State is pressing hard for that investment and that he will make that clear during the debate.
We recognise the importance of the guarantee on steelmaking until 1994 at Ravenscraig, but it would be of little comfort if this were a bridging operation for the convenience of British Steel, leading nowhere. At Dalziel, too, there are concerns. We hear reports of the possibility of a one plate mill strategy, that decisions may well be imminent on that, and that it may be a case not so much of "if" as of "where". We are anxious that the Scottish Office should have a positive input into the argument.
Much manufacturing industry has changed or contracted. We make no bones about it. We accept that it was bound to happen. It is true to say, however, that we in Scotland have borne an unfair share of the burden. Perhaps I can take as a statistical basis for that assertion the view expressed in the Scottish Development Agency report:
While Scotland's manufacturing output was still below its 1975 level in 1987, elsewhere in Europe over this period output had risen substantially (e.g., Germany—28 per cent., Italy—31 per cent., France—15 per cent.). With higher output the relative fall in manufacturing employment was much less than in Scotland.
That, again, is a mark of our failure. We should not just write off that comparative gap as something about which we can do nothing and say that we must just watch and wait. New industries are important. I do not want to talk just about the steel industry and the old, traditional sector. Electronics has a future, but, again, it is a future bedevilled by lack of investment, research and development, product innovation and long-term economic development. Those points are forcefully put in the SDA report; it concludes its discussion of electronics by saying:
the indigenous Scottish industry remains small and embryonic".
The report is damaging because it undermines many of the Government's assumptions and supports the doubts and worries that are expressed, sometimes to derision or almost to the suggestion from Conservative Members that such doubts are unpatriotic or panic-stricken. It reinforces our fear that complacency has got out of hand and that we are not facing up to the problems that lie ahead.
Scotland has a great deal to offer, but even in the service sector, where there has been growth, it has tended to be slower than in other parts of the country. The SDA report says:
It is in consumer orientated services—reflecting Scotland's falling population—that underperformance is most apparent. While Scotland has been losing jobs in distribution during the 1980s, employment has continued to grow rapidly in the UK. Perhaps more surprising is the performance of tourist related employment, which now

accounts for some 130,000 jobs. In contrast to a 33 per cent. growth (1983–1987) in Great Britain, Scotland's growth is only some 12 per cent.; the difference has been most obvious during the 1980s when the Scottish industry contributed few additional jobs".
That cannot be a reason for satisfaction; it must be a cause for worry and for an anxious re-examination of what the Government have been doing.
I found the report a deeply depressing and worrying document. The Secretary of State for Scotland has tried to pass it off as the work of an official. The SDA is an official body with expertise, playing a very important part in the economic planning of the Government, as we have always understood it. The Secretary of State tries to brush it off by saying that some of it has already been published. If it has, it was presumably not all that unimportant or meant merely to moulder in a drawer. It seems to me a thoughtful, thought-provoking and, from the Government's point of view, damaging document.
Scotland has a great deal to offer, and I agree that there are major opportunities, but those opportunities must be taken. We cannot afford a neutral Government who simply hold the ring. That has increasingly been the Government's role, and the Secretary of State must take much of the blame for it. There has been a lack of commitment, imagination and basic will. If it is not put right, the long-term trends and the habit of decline will be entrenched, to our cost. The battle for tomorrow must always be fought today. There is precious little sign that the Government are prepared to accept that responsibility. That is why we tabled the motion and will vote for it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates the Government on the success of their economic policies in Scotland which have resulted in higher living standards, greatly reduced unemployment, a substantial increase in the workforce in employment, and record levels of manufacturing productivity and output; have promoted the competitiveness of Scottish industry and its readiness to meet the challenge of the Single European Market; have encouraged the growth of investment, of enterprise and small businesses, and have provided a basis for sustained growth and development across the economy as a whole; and notes that unemployment is now falling faster in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.
I ought in all politeness to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) back to the House of Commons after his dramatic flight to Glasgow yesterday for a press conference to try to save the tattered remnants of the roof tax. I assure him that I do not intend to speak on that subject today, and I am delighted that he is anxious to defend his proposals at the first opportunity; I am sure that that is something that we can easily accommodate.
There is one respect in which what the hon. Gentleman said yesterday is relevant to our debate today and to the Scottish economy. I understand that the hon. Gentleman gave various reasons why the Labour party has decided that a local income tax would be highly undesirable in the interests of the Scottish economy, and I hope that it will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with his analysis and conclusions.
I must add that if the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that the consequence of a local income tax would be to add some several pence, perhaps up to 10p, to the standard rate of income tax in Scotland, and that it would be undesirable


for the people of Scotland to face a level of income tax higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we can only express some puzzlement as to why the hon. Gentleman's party has failed to reach a similar conclusion about the consequence of giving a Scottish assembly power to alter the rate of income tax.
As we have identified before, it is the implications for the Scottish economy of a higher rate of income tax in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom which is one of the prime arguments as to why those proposals would damage Scottish jobs, Scottish employment and Scottish industry. It is therefore appropriate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should at least try to be consistent.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State referred to fiscal powers that many of us would like to see vested in a Scottish parliament. Does he agree that if, in the forthcoming Budget, the Chancellor thought it improper for the United Kingdom as a whole, because of overheating in the south-east, not to reduce corporation tax on small businesses, for example, but felt that it might be an important and useful measure for small businesses in Scotland, he would effectively not be allowed to do so? If we had a Scottish parliament with fiscal powers, such a tax-cutting measure could be undertaken.

Mr. Rifkind: To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would not think that he was a member of a party that wishes to see fiscal integration in the European Community. His party's whole wish is to see a harmonisation of taxes throughout the Community. It is therefore a slightly curious way of bringing that about to wish to see fiscal disintegration in one part of the Community. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should try to reconcile that curious anomaly in his position.
I should like to pay a compliment to Opposition Members, which the hon. Member for Garscadden did not pay, by responding to the terms of the motion. I always think that, where possible, we should allow these debates to concentrate on the motion on the Order paper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, at least in principle, does not disagree with that observation.
As I read through the motion, I saw several allegations made against the Government, to which it is appropriate for me to seek to respond. The first is that we are responsible for what the motion refers to as "relative economic decline" in Scotland. The word "relative" is important: "relative economic decline" is Labourspeak for "actual economic growth", and that is precisely what Scotland is experiencing and has experienced for some time.
It is important that that point be fully registered. It is something that the House should already be aware of, that over the past year Scotland has enjoyed the highest output, including manufacturing output, that it has ever known in its economic history. I recall, as I am sure the House will, that two or three years ago—

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment.
I recall the Government and the House constantly being told by Opposition Members and by various learned commentators that Scotland was experiencing de-industrialisation and that the whole of Scotland, as an industrial economy, was disappearing like snow off a dyke. Yet we find that in the past 12 months manufacturing output not only has been maintained, but has been the highest in our economic history. That does not refer to the service sector only; it includes the manufacturing sector.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is a point that affects a great many of my constituents. On manufacturing output, can the Scottish Office look very carefully—that is all I ask—at the operation now of Mr. Kerry Packer and his associates, after two, if not three, Australian takeovers, of the north British Steel foundry in Bathgate, coupled with the Atlas Steel foundry in Armadale? I know that those are important sectors of any economy. I know that there are problems. I think that the Scottish Office has tried to be helpful. Could this have the attention of both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Minister of State? It is a very complex matter.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall certainly look at the point that he raises.
Not only is Scotland experiencing the highest manufacturing output of its economic history, but output there is now growing faster than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. For example, in 1988–89, the last year for which we have figures available, the level of growth of industrial production in the United Kingdom was 2·2 per cent. In Scotland it was 4·5 per cent. Faced with those figures and the present record manufacturing output, the reference in the Opposition motion to "relative economic decline" shows a disregard for the facts that is not to the credit of the hon. Member for Garscadden.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that we are suffering from overheating of the Scottish economy? If this has been such an economic miracle, why are we still losing young skilled people, who have to go south to find jobs?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House a few moments ago when I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden. The question of migration was raised at that time and I was able to inform the House that the net migration figures last year were the lowest of any year since 1975. That is something which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome as much as I do. I am not saying that we do not have economic problems in Scotland, or that the economy in Scotland is overheated. I am saying that the Scottish economy at present is growing faster than that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and not to recognise that is to do a disservice to Scotland's interests.

Mr. Gavin Strang: As the Secretary of State knows very well, Scotland's largest manufacturing employer is Ferranti. I put it to him, as the Minister with responsibility for the Scottish economy, that we welcome the support that the Government have given to the GEC acquisition of Ferranti Defence Systems in Edinburgh, but to achieve the benefits of that we need to win the radar contract, which will be achieved only if that acquisition is not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot anticipate the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but, if the acquisition is referred to the MMC, it will jeopardise not only the radar contract but the whole European fighter aircraft project, which involves thousands of jobs. Will he take that on board and ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry fully takes account of Scottish economic interests in this matter?

Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says; I am sure that he will acknowledge that recent developments regarding Ferranti have been beneficial to the interests of the thousands of members of its work force in Edinburgh. I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the support he seeks if he will support the maintenance of proper levels of defence expenditure, as without that, Ferranti would have a pretty grim future.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that the EFA programme depends vitally on a pledge from this Government and any future Government, and that we should be interested to know what Labour's view is on that?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that it works both ways, as I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will recognise.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: There has already been a reference to the importance of Ravenscraig, which must account for about 5 per cent. of Scottish manufacturing output. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the cuts in output of steel in Scotland, which have not taken place in Wales, must have reduced manufacturing output in Scotland by at least 1 per cent.?

Mr. Rifkind: This is becoming more like Question Time and less like a debate than I had originally intended. Obviously, we have expressed our concern about recent decisions in that respect. It is encouraging that, since Christmas, Ravenscraig has resumed its output of steel products. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
The charge of "relative economic decline" is difficult for the Opposition to sustain, certainly when one looks at developments in the Scottish economy over the past year.
The next charge is of "unacceptable levels of unemployment" and I must ask the hon. Member for Garscadden what he means by that. If he means that unemployment is too high, I agree; that would be true of any time in the past 30 years. There has never been a time when hon. Members on either side of the House have been complacent about the levels of unemployment.
However, if the hon. Gentleman is trying to discern the current trend of the problem of unemployment, he should at least acknowledge that over the past year unemployment in Scotland has fallen by no less than 50,000, which is the largest fall since records began in 1948. Not only has unemployment fallen by 50,000 in one year, but the rate at which unemployment is falling in Scotland has, over the past few months, been significantly higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at those matters not from the perspective of unemployment but from the perspective of total employment in Scotland, the situation is equally encouraging. Employment in Scotland increased by no less

than 100,000 in 1987, the latest year for which we have figures, and that included the manufacturing sector. That is something of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware. The total number of people in employment is the highest that it has been for 10 years.

Mr. Dewar: Why, if the record is so good, has the gap in average earnings to which I referred opened as it has? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes back two or three years, he will see that in the league table of unemployment we were in the middle. We are now, on the British mainland, the second highest, behind only the north. It seems to me that our record has been deteriorating quite clearly against the record in other parts of Great Britain over the past two or three years.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that there is any such trend to which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer. He will know that, when we pointed out that Scotland had very high levels of earnings a few years ago, he immediately dismissed that as somehow irrelevant to his argument. Now that there has been a relative change in respect of certain areas of England, he immediately says that this is decisive and conclusive. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind about the importance that he attaches to these matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: The House will forgive me; this is a short debate and I have already given way a considerable number of times.
The next charge made against the Government is on the alleged inadequate levels of industrial investment and the alleged reduction in regional incentives. I happily concede that we should all like to see higher levels of industrial investment. That has been a problem in the United Kingdom as a whole probably for the past 100 years, never mind the past 10 or 30 years. But it is important also to recognise that the level of industrial investment in Scotland matches very well the United Kingdom level as a whole. While we would all wish to see it increased substantially, that is something that is ultimately within the control of industry itself.
On regional incentives, I accept that we have quite deliberately and consciously abolished the regional development grant. We did so with considerable support from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) because it acknowledged in its study of the matter that automatic grants of that sort did little to encourage investment and that it was far more sensible to concentrate investment and support on companies that would not otherwise wish to invest in Scotland. That is, I believe, a much more logical and sensible basis.
We are accused in the motion of not having prepared properly for 1992. That is pretty rich from a party that opposed our membership of the European Community until very recently, although I exempt the hon. Member for Garscadden from that charge. However, he cannot allow his own party to be exempt from it, because it was passionately hostile to our membership of the Community until the British electorate persuaded it otherwise.
As the single most important preparation that we can make for 1992 is to improve our training and business support in Scotland, it is pretty ironic that the Labour party, alone in Scotland, is opposing Scottish Enterprise, and that it cannot even call on the support of the Scottish


TUC or Scottish local authorities in its lonely, isolated opposition to the measure. It is pretty rich for Labour to say that we are not preparing for 1992. It is widely recognised by the Confederation of British Industry, by the STUC, by Scottish local authorities and by the whole Scottish economic community that Scottish Enterprise offers an exciting new opportunity, as does its counterpart in the Highlands and Islands. If the Opposition are concerned about those matters, they should tackle their own failure to support this important change.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not give way at the moment, but perhaps later on.
On the charge that we have failed to protect Scotland from high interest rates, the hon. Member for Garscadden clearly has not examined recent trends in the Scottish economy. Several recent reports and studies acknowledged that Scotland was faring much better than any other part of the United Kingdom with regard to high interest rates.

Mr. Dewar: Not true.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall respond to that allegation. The forecast of growth for the United Kingdom for 1990 is 1·25 per cent. The report by Cambridge Econometrics to which the hon. Gentleman referred projects that growth in Scotland will be not 1·2 per cent., but 1·6 per cent. Fraser of Allander is projecting growth of 1·9 per cent. and is even more optimistic, and Business Strategies, in its recent reports, said that Scotland can expect to be second only to East Anglia in economic growth levels in the early 1990s.
The studies of the CBI in Scotland present a more optimistic picture than that painted by the CBI in the United Kingdom as a whole. In its surveys, the Scottish CBI shows that output in Scotland is growing faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Manufacturers are less pessimistic, exports are increasing faster and employment is growing, although it fell elsewhere in the United Kingdom in the last quarter of 1989.
Those are the views of outside spokesmen, including the Fraser of Allander Institute, which is a body that has never been hesitant to criticise the Government in the past when it thought it appropriate.

Mr. Dewar: As a corrective to those remarks, does the Minister remember the National Westminster bank report of 20 December 1989, which said:
After a brief interlude next year, when Scotland will suffer less from a slowdown than the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland will again grow more slowly than the UK as a whole for the following five years."?
I shall also quote the chairman of the CBI's economic committee in Scotland, Mr. Wrigglesworth, who said in October—so this is two or three months old—that:
The outlook has deteriorated since summer, with orders and employment falling and output at a standstill.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can easily see from the overall economic situation that Scotland is coping far better than the United Kingdom as a whole at present.
For example, let us consider the construction industry in Scotland—73 per cent. of those who responded to the survey by the Scottish Building Employers Federation say

that they are expecting increased orders in the next year. That is the highest response of that kind in the United Kingdom.
We know that the Scottish economy has been less affected by high interest rates, it is more export-oriented and the oil industry in Scotland is booming at present, with an increase in employment of no less than 11 per cent. over the past year. We should warmly welcome that.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State was telling the House—and it was received with some incredulity—that the Scottish construction industry is undergoing a boom. I am looking at the index of industrial production, from which the Secretary of State quoted a few moments ago. It says that, since 1985, the Scotish construction industry has grown by 2·5 per cent., and in the same period the construction industry in the United Kingdom as a whole has grown by 23·5 per cent. Where is the boom?

Mr. Rifkind: The whole point that I am making, if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to listen, is that in the past couple of years Scotland has overtaken the United Kingdom position, which has fallen back. The Building Employers Confederation's recent survey shows that 73 per cent. of Scottish firms expect an increase in their work load in the coming year. In no other part of the United Kingdom do firms expect anything like that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman is right in that, between 1985 and a year or so ago, the balance was the other way round. I have not sought to suggest otherwise, but in the past couple of years the situation has been reversed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall continue because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
Finally, I wish to refer to non-domestic rates, which are of equal importance to the Scottish economy and to the prospects of Scottish industry and employment. Opposition Members will be as anxious as I am to ensure that that important area of taxation, which has a material effect on commerce and industry in Scotland, should be properly protected. The hon. Member for Garscadden acknowledged that fact.
The Government have shown their commitment to achieve a level playing field—a harmonisation of business rates—and have taken early steps to move in that direction. For example, one of our first measures in the past few years was the indexation of non-domestic rates. That has already been of substantial benefit to Scottish industry and commerce. It has been estimated that, if we had not indexed non-domestic rates to the rate of inflation, Scottish industry and commerce would have paid £50 million more in business rates during the past few years. That support would disappear immediately if the Labour party's proposal came into effect.
I have been examining the Labour party's proposals, and they are revealing and interesting. The document published last week on non-domestic rates is rather coy. It says only that Labour's provisional plans were laid out in its consultation document published in 1989. I thought that I had better refer to the original holy writ on the subject, so I turned to that document, which says that Labour


would abolish the restrictions limiting increases to the retail price index. Businesses should shoulder a fair burden of the cost of local services.
I have no doubt that Opposition Members are proud of that proposal, but they should be under no illusion about what its consequences would be. If that had been Government policy in the past couple of years, businesses would already have paid £50 million more than they have paid, or are due to pay in the forthcoming year. That is the first consequence, and it would be damaging to the Scottish economy and to employment in Scotland.
But it is even more serious than that, because we know that local authorities—[Interruption.] No, let me continue. Local authorities have just been fixing the community charge, and we know that, if there had not been indexation, judging by the experience of previous years, the business rate would go up next year by the same amount as the community charge. For example, in Strathclyde, which covers half of Scotland, the increase in business rate would not have been limited to the rate of inflation, but would have been 12 per cent. In Stirling, the district business rate would be going up by 18 per cent., and in Edinburgh by 24 per cent.
I do not wish to debate who is responsible for that increase at the moment.[Laughter.] No, I am happy to do so on another occasion, and Opposition Members will not distract me from the point that I am making.
If this was a matter for local authority discretion, no matter whose fault it was, local authorities would be increasing the business rate for commerce and industry in Strathclyde by 12 per cent., and in Edinburgh by 24 per cent. Opposition Members should realise that that would be a consequence of the policies that they wish to pursue.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way in a few moments.
The position is far worse than I have so far described. Not only is the Labour party opposed to the indexation of business rates, but the inevitable consequence of what I understand to be Labour's policy is that there would be no prospect, either now or in the future, of the harmonisation of business rates north and south of the border. That is an even more serious point. As the House knows, harmonisation has been welcomed by virtually everyone in Scotland and there has been widespread recognition that the Scottish economy and Scottish industry have suffered for years because of the high business rates there compared to rates in England and Wales. For the purpose of today's discussion, let us not argue as to whose fault that was.
Business rates have been far higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, and everyone, apart from the Labour party, seems to agree that that should end as quickly as possible. But to achieve that, two things must happen; there must be a harmonisation of valuation law and a common rates poundage. If local authorities are left to decide those matters, quite properly they will use their discretion in different ways. and on the experience of the past 40 years, business rates in Scotland will remain significantly higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the very first year we have reduced the gap by £80 million. That £80 million, together with the £50 million by which industry has benefited from indexation, means that already our policy has saved industry and commerce in

Scotland—that means the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs—no less than £130 million. All that would be wiped away if it became a matter of local authority discretion.
It is literally impossible to have a common business rate and local council discretion. If the Labour party chooses the latter, it will consciously damage the Scottish economy and Scottish employment. The situation goes from bad to worse. The Labour party document seems to acknowledge that differential rates burdens could be damaging to some sectors of industry. The document states that it
will need to ensure that any proposals do not put Scottish small businesses at a serious disadvantage in comparison to small businesses elsewhere in the country.
That sounds splendid, but why is it necessary to protect only small businesses from different and heavier rate burdens, but not big businesses or industry? Why protect small businesses, but give no protection to Ravenscraig, Yarrow, IBM or Ferranti?
I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East why his party is guaranteeing or seeking to suggest that it would protect small businesses from differential rates burdens caused by giving local authorities discretion, but would offer no protection to the larger industries that employ most people. Has the hon. Member for Garscadden thought it out? Is it a conscious policy or is it simply a mess?
I suspect that it is a mess. I cannot conceive that the Labour party consciously wishes to put Ravenscraig, of all places, in a position where its rates burden would he consciously and deliberately higher than that of the steel industry elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As Opposition Members know, the steel industry in Scotland, along with every other industry there, has paid higher rates burdens than any industry in England and Wales. The Government's policy will eliminate that over a period. According to the document, the Opposition's policy would offer no such protection.
I have to ask the hon. Member for Garscadden—I shall happily give way to him—whether he and his party believe in and support the objectives of harmonising the rates burden of Scottish industry compared with industry south of the border. If he does, does he accept that that cannot be achieved without a common rates poundage? If he does not accept that, can he explain how giving local authorities discretion to determine the level of non-domestic rates is compatible with achieving a level playing field for Scottish industry compared with the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dewar: Obviously, I shall read with some care what the Secretary of State has said, but there are several ways in which we can help Scottish industry. Industrial derating was the simplest and best known way of doing that. I certainly do not accept that what he is doing, which is preserving the differences by conserving the present system, does what he has claimed.
The Secretary of State is indulging in sleight of hand. If he is assuming that the industrial rate will go up by the same extent as the poll tax, he forgets that that will produce a great deal more income that will bring both down towards a medium position. That is one example. I shall not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is cheating, as that would be an offensive thing to say and I would not wish to be offensive, but in a fabric of words, he is misrepresenting the position. We do not wish to place an unreasonable burden on Scottish industry, and we have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has shown himself totally confused. I notice that he did not answer the question. The question was quite simple: does he believe in harmonisation—that means identical business rates for industry north and south of the border? If he does, how can he reconcile that with giving local authorities discretion as to the level of business rates? The hon. Gentleman knows that we have had industrial derating for years, and that has not produced a level playing field; that is not the answer. If the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify that, I shall happily give way to him again.

Mr. Dewar: I do not think that local authority discretion is necessarily the disaster that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. In the past, local authority discretion has been a forced discretion, largely because cuts in central Government support meant that the system was bearing a burden for which it was never designed. If we consider who must bear the responsibility for that, I would not suggest the Secretary of State alone—I presume that his colleagues in the Treasury and his predecessors would take some responsibility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a mess and confusion and unreasonable burdens, but he should look at the record over the years of the Government whom he supports, in terms of the rate support grant, the revenue support grant and, of course, the poll tax.

Mr. Rifkind: The House and Scotland will note that the hon. Gentleman has not thought this one out. He is obviously embarrassed. He knows that in principle he is in favour of harmonisation. He knows that that is in Scotland's interests, but he obviously did not realise until today that that was incompatible with the policy that he is putting forward.
From the party that brought us the roof tax, we now have the jobs tax. The perpetuation of a heavier rates burden on Scottish industry and commerce would be damaging to heavy industry, to Ravenscraig, to Yarrow and to every business, big or small, wherever it may be in Scotland. If this debate is about the interests of the Scottish economy, I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends of deliberately wishing to do down the Scottish economy; I accuse them of a much more serious offence—of total and utter confusion and incompetence.

Hon. Members: Is that it?

Mr. John McAllion: It is little wonder that my hon. Friends are asking the Secretary of State for Scotland, "Is that it?" Rarely have I seen a less competent performance by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He showed complete and callous indifference to the state of the Scottish economy, and instead tried to turn the debate into an attack on Labour's policy on local government finance, purely to try to push the Tory party's chances in the forthcoming regional council elections in May.
The Secretary of State said that the House and Scotland would note what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said. The people of Scotland will judge my hon. Friend's contribution to debates over the past 10 years, and that of the Secretary of State, when they go to the polls in the next general election. I have every confidence that they will give resounding support to the Labour party, and that the policies that it has espoused for many years will be put into practice when

Labour wins the next general election and forms a Government for the United Kingdom and sets up a Scottish Parliament.
The Secretary of State referred to the document that the Labour party produced on local government. He referred to the phrase that stated that the Labour party will look to business to shoulder a fair share of local government taxation. The Secretary of State seemed to imply that it is terrible to envisage that business should carry a fair share of the burden. That implies that the Government's policy is that poll tax payers should carry an unfair share of the burden. If business does not carry its fair share, the burden will be put on the poll tax payers. If that is the official Government policy on which the Tories will fight the next regional council elections, and the next general election, I look forward to that contest, as I am confident of its outcome.
At the end of last year, the Standing Commission on the Scottish Economy produced its final report. I feel it is necessary to remind the Secretary of State that throughout the three years in which the standing commission studied the Scottish economy, it was studiously ignored by Ministers, as was its final report. Ministers may argue that it is another cross-party political body, but it is nothing of the sort; if it was, the Scottish National party would have walked out by now.
The Secretary of State must recognise that the standing commission is composed of distinguished Scottish academics, industrialists and economists. Its final report was based on 30 different reports from Scottish analyists, and it took in a wealth of evidence from overseas. The conclusion of its report is that we require Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.
In the preface to the report, the chairman of the standing commission, Professor Sir Kenneth Alexander, said:
Some of the policy proposals are so specifically Scottish in their purpose that we consider it unlikely that they would be legislated by a Westminster Parliament. This leads us to conclude that the adoption of such policy initiatives requires a more decentralised political and administrative structure with a Parliament in Scotland having key economic and social powers.
That is not a party political conclusion but the conclusion of industrialists and business men. They have determined that Scotland's economic problems will be solved only by a Scottish Parliament with key economic powers.
It is imperative that the Secretary of State begins to take that message on board, because if he does not he will fail to understand the real problems that are facing the Scottish economy. He must accept that we have a pan-United Kingdom institution in charge of the Scottish economy—the Westminster Parliament. I shall not argue whether, by definition, that is good or bad. In control of that Westminster Parliament is a party whose power base is almost exclusively in the midlands and south of England. It will secure its control of Parliament as long as it retains its power base in the south. It does not require the voters of Wales, Scotland or the north to return it to office. As long as the voters of the midlands and south of England vote for it, it will retain control of this country.
The Conservative party is interested only in ensuring that everything is done to secure the economic interests of the south of England. It does not care whether that is bad for Wales, Scotland or the north, because it does not need voters in those areas to return it to office.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the description that he is giving rather fits the Labour party's position in Scotland, where it represents only one seat north of the Tay?

Mr. Robert Hughes: What about Aberdeen?

Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend points out, Aberdeen is north of the Tay. Sometimes, Dundee is also considered to be north of the Tay.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. McAllion: If that is to he the quality of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has convinced me that it is unwise to give way to him.

Mr. John McFall: Was the intervention made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) deliberate disinformation in the guise of his position as Scottish Defence Minister, or was it complete ignorance on his part?

Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend knows, it was complete ignorance.
The solution to the economy overheating in the south is to apply high interest rates not only in the south but in Scotland, Wales and the north, regardless of whether the economies of those areas need it. The mass unemployment, slow growth and under-utilisation of capacity in Scotland represent a complete negation and condemnation of the Government policy.

Mr. Hayward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman is an English Member.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that he will not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) because he is an English Member. Will you remind Scottish Members that all hon. Members are eligible to take part in debates on all parts of the United Kingdom? Many of us have much interest in the welfare of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member who has the Floor decides to whom he will give way.

Mr. McAllion: I would have been more impressed by that point of order if the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) had been present throughout the debate.

Mr. Hayward: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; this is a short debate.
May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the research carried out for the standing commission by Alastair Lonie and David Power at Dundee university, and the evidence given by Professor David Vines and David Bell of Glasgow? They concluded that the policy of high interest rates had disproportionately disadvantaged Scotland and had taken £630 million from the local economy—more than the annual budget for the Scottish Development Agency and regional assistance in Scotland.
The Government have deliberately taken £630 million from an economy which is suffering from unemployment

and under-utilisation of capacity and tried to pass that off as a serious economic policy that will benefit the people of Scotland.
It is not so much that the Government have the wrong diagnosis for Scotland as that they have no diagnosis and do not care whether they have such a diagnosis because they do not need the voters of Scotland in order to be re-elected.

Mr. Hayward: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I have only a short time available, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We know that the Secretary of State has abolished regional development grants in favour of selective assistance, which he says will more effectively target Government money where it is required. That was considered in some detail by the standing commission. It carried out a survey of regional financial assistance in Scotland between 1981 and 1988. It concluded that fewer firms are being helped now than in 1981.
The standing commission then considered the take-up of selective assistance, but what it found was very different from the picture that the Government paint. Taking into account the new and revised offers made by the Government, it found that in 1988–89 only £49·4 million had been provided in selective assistance to firms in Scotland—£9 million less than the previous year, and £17 million less than in 1984–85. The Scottish economy is desperately in need of state support and investment, yet it is being starved of both by the Government.
The standing commission concluded that, although that policy helped to reduce the Exchequer's outlay£and no doubt the public sector borrowing requirement£it was proving a real cost to the Scottish economy and was effectively negating the Government's policy of regional assistance.
There is evidence of that everywhere in Scotland. The headline in the Glasgow Herald of last November said, "Docklands aid dwarfs Scotland's". Alf Young, its economic correspondent, wrote of
the most dramatic demonstration of regional policy in reverse yet mounted by the Thatcher Government
and the massive spending by the Government on London docklands. Docklands boasts an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. Quite why an enterprise zone was necessary to move the City of London a few miles down the river has always been beyond me. The article says that the Government are increasing assistance for the docklands development from £228 million to £332 million in 1990–91. Between 1989 and 1992, the Government will make a staggering investment of £813 million in the docklands development.
In addition, the extension of the Jubilee line to Canary wharf will cost £1,000 million, £600 million of which will be direct state subsidy. When I raised with Ministers and ScotRail the electrification of the line north of Edinburgh. I was told that it was too expensive at £100 million, yet £1,000 million is being spent on a short extension of the Underground to docklands. However, they cannot afford to electrify the north-east railway line north of Edinburgh, which is a disgrace.
If one compares the budgets for the Scottish Development Agency and for the new Scottish Enterprise, on present trends and over the same period to which I referred when I spoke about the docklands, one sees that no more than £330 million will be allocated to Scotland.
How does that compare with the £1,000 million for the Underground development and with the £813 million for the London docklands development? Inevitably, the people who pay the price for those problems—

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was not here at the beginning of the debate.
The people who pay the price for the Government's policies are those whom the Opposition represent and who live in Scotland, in the north of England and in Wales. The Secretary of State referred to the tremendous falls in unemployment. In my constituency, the figures of the Secretary of State suggested that 4,791 people were out of work last November. He would no doubt argue that that represents tremendous progress compared to the figures in 1982, but it represents progress only if one is taken in by the Government's own fiddled figures for unemployment.
Since 1982, there have been no fewer than 30 changes in the way in which the Government count the unemployed. Only one increased the number of unemployed; the other 29 reduced the number of those who were officially counted as unemployed. That was done in many ways. The Government based the figures, for example, on the claimant count rather than on those who were out of work and seeking work. They also discounted unemployed school leavers and denied income support to 16 and 17-year-olds. Those were all ways of bringing down the unemployment figure without bringing down unemployment.

Mr. Lang: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development labour force survey assesses unemployment in the United Kingdom as being lower than the figures that we assess from our own unemployment benefit count. Is not the hon. Gentleman's case therefore nonsense?

Mr. McAllion: My case is not nonsense. The figures have been made available to me by the Unemployment Unit, which examines the Government's fiddled statistics carefully. It provided figures that show a different picture. Instead of there being 4,791 unemployed in Dundee, East, there are 7,011 unemployed in that constituency. In other words, 2,200 unemployed people have disappeared from the statistics not because they found work and so were no longer unemployed, but because they were removed by the Government's administrative diktat. They are still there and still unemployed, but they have become invisible to those in the Department of Employment who count the unemployed.
Dundee, East now has a real unemployment level of 17·5 per cent. more than 10 years after the Government took responsibility for the Scottish economy. Of 633 constituencies, only 48 have higher unemployment and almost all are in Scotland, in the north of England and in Wales.

Mr. Hayward: rose—

Mr. McAllion: None of those constituencies is in the south-east, yet the hon. Members who represent constituencies there get up on their hind legs and boast

about unemployment being defeated once and for all. They should tell that to the people in Scotland, in Wales and in the north of England.

Mr. Hayward: rose—

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make his own speech later.
What is worse is that, among the unemployed in Dundee, East, almost one in three have been out of work for at least a year. Does the Secretary of State wish to boast about such a record at the Dispatch Box? I hope not. I am conscious of the time and I may have spoken for too long already. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased that the Minister says, "Hear, hear." I am obviously having some effect.
Other hon. Members have referred to moving away from the old smokestack industries into new sectors, such as electronics, which is a central theme of the Government's defence of its handling of the Scottish economy. They always boast about the work of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment to Scotland. That argument is beginning to wear thin with the Opposition.
The Government must understand that we live in a world where competition for inward investment is becoming ever fiercer. In four inward investment cases, Scotland has lost out. The Mitsubishi Electrics £180 million semiconductor plant did not go to Scotland, but to West Germany. The Fujitsu £400 million microchip plant went to the north-east of England and Texas Instruments, with 1,000 jobs, went to Italy. The Intel Corporation from California, with up to 2,400 jobs, went to the Republic of Ireland.
Increasingly, that will become the pattern. We shall be competing not only with the countries and areas that I have mentioned, but with eastern Europe. I heard on the radio this morning that workers in factories in East Berlin, for example, earn the equivalent of £25 a week. With such low-wage economies, where will international capital go to build its new semiconductor plants and its factories? It will go to eastern Europe, not to countries such as Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr. Lang: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House why the Ford Motor Company did not come to Dundee?

Mr. McAllion: That is easy. Ford did not come to Dundee because Ford can play one country off against another. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself of the real issue. Ford claimed that it refused to come to Dundee because it could not obtain a single-union agreement there. What happened? Ford went to Spain. It did not obtain a single-union agreement there, but a multi-union agreement. It went to Spain because the Spanish Government provided more incentives.
Does the Minister remember Wang in Stirling and Caterpillar in Uddingston? Those were multinational companies which came here, picked the flesh off the bones of the Scottish economy and then took off when it suited them. Increasingly, that will be the pattern, as the Minister must realise. He cannot base his whole strategy on attracting inward investment. That is not realistic nowadays.
If we are to move forward, we must have a strategy that focuses on the local people and on the local area, with indigenous enterprise. That strategy was developed first in


Scotland by the Labour administration in Tayside region in 1986. We went to the people with the policy of establishing an enterprise board which would give assistance, soft loans and grants to small and medium-sized companies in Tayside to encourage them to grow.
That was a successful policy, but it was fought tooth and nail first by central Government, because to them it smacked too much of the Greater London council from which the idea was borrowed, and then by the local Tories, who thought that it involved interference in the free market. Now it has been heralded as a great success. The Minister of State, Scottish Office came up to Dundee to help launch the Tayside enterprise board and to try to claim some credit for it, although his party had fought it tooth and nail all along.
If we are to have the policies that will boost local industry and the local economy, they will come only from control being decentralised from Westminster. They will come only from a powerful Scottish parliament with key economic powers and key powers over the infrastructure. There is no future for Scotland otherwise. That is the conclusion of the standing commission report and, increasingly, of people across the country. It should be the conclusion of the debate, although unfortunately it will not be, because this debate has no effect on the Scottish economy or on Government policy. The Secretary of State is not Scotland's man in the Cabinet, but the Cabinet's man in Scotland and there is a wealth of difference in that distinction.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless speeches are much briefer, I am afraid that a number of hon. Members will be disappointed.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not, of course, like to be reminded about Ford, so I shall remind him of something else. I shall remind him of the time when Dundee was competing for the headquarters of an international oil company. When the decision was about to be made, Dundee district council told its employees to go out on strike in support of what was obviously a politically motivated activity. That did nothing to persuade the oil company that Dundee was the place to establish its headquarters. With such leadership, companies will not come. I shall return to the problems of Dundee later, because my constituency is adjacent to Dundee.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I have only just started my speech, but very well.

Mr. Maxton: I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would correct the misinformation that he gave the House earlier. Will he point out to the House that the Labour party has five seats north of the Tay, whereas the Tories have two and a half?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands where north is in Scottish geography. If he said that the Labour party had four seats including those

in Dundee and Aberdeen—and I imagine that he is also including the Western Isles—he would not be right about what was pure north. I should not expect him to understand that. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the Highlands, the Labour party is not considered to be the party that understands its problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories aren't."] The Labour party claims that it speaks for all the people of Scotland. I have never claimed to speak for all the people of Scotland. I speak for the people of north Tayside.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Conservatives were going to make this a debate about the roof tax. We are not. I find it interesting that the Labour party wishes to have a tax for Scotland which is different from that for England and Wales. I imagine that on this occasion Scotland is to be Labour's guinea pig. As I understand its proposals, councils will set their own levels of expenditure and the level of roof tax. Once again, under Labour, the elderly will pay a tax based on the size and present-day value of their home, regardless of the price that they paid for it.
The Labour party proposes to introduce computerised revaluations. What a lovely way to revalue. Labour would return Scotland to the evils of the old rating system and of revaluations. The uniform business rate will vanish and, once more, Scotland's shopkeepers and business men will find that department stores in Sauchiehall street pay more in local authority tax than similar stores in Regent street in London. There would be no harmonisation under Labour, and we know why. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, there would be a 24 per cent-plus increase in the business rate this year. Of course, the £130 million saving made under our policy last year and this year would not be made under Labour's policies.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement today on flood and storm damage in my constituency and other Scottish constituencies. That statement will be welcomed by all who have suffered in the flooding. That is true of my constituency where there has been extensive flooding.
The output of Scottish manufacturing industry in the second quarter of 1989 reached record levels. The Opposition do not like to be told that. Industry surpassed the previous peak recorded in the second quarter of 1974. Output was 3·8 per cent. up on the previous quarter. In 1988, manufacturing output in Scotland grew by about 8 per cent. At the same time, seasonally adjusted unemployment stood at 8·5 per cent. in December last year—the lowest since 1980.
Self-employment has increased by 50 per cent. since 1981. Between June 1981 and June 1988, self-employment rose by 66,000. When one compares that with the three decades to 1981—in which there was no change—one can see what a remarkable change has taken place in Scotland.
The October Confederation of British Industry survey confirmed the August Scottish chambers of commerce's business survey which showed that export markets, on which we depend so vitally, remain healthy. The 1989 annual survey of the top 200 Scottish firms carried out by Scottish Business Insider shows that turnover rose by 25 per cent. on the year before. That is a massive increase. Profits were up by 14 per cent. Both turnover and profits are up, yet all that we hear from Opposition Members is doom and gloom.
Some 132 of the top 200 companies are Scottish-owned. So much for the nonsense about Scotland's industry being


owned and run by other people. All those facts show that the growth in the Scottish economy in 1988 was the strongest since 1973.
The growth in Scottish manufacturing productivity since 1979 has been faster than any of the major industrial economies. Between 1 January 1980 and 1 January 1989, the number of companies registered in Scotland rose by just under 20,000 or more than one half. The most recent survey by the Fraser of Allander Institute forecast that the growth of the Scottish economy is set to outstrip that of the United Kingdom over the next five years.
It is interesting to note the dramatic change in the places to which Scottish firms export. For example, 23 per cent. of our exports in 1973 were to north America. Today only 17 per cent. of our exports are to north America, so there has been a reduction. Let us see what has happened within the EEC. In 1973, 23 per cent. of our exports were to the EEC. That has now jumped to a massive 53 per cent. We are exporting much more to Europe. The benefits of the European market are beginning to be felt, and not before time, particularly when one considers some of the non-tariff barriers that kept our exports out for so long. Strangely enough, the biggest single export earner is the manufacture of office and data processing machinery.
I make no apology for mentioning the whisky industry. As a teetotaller, I am proud of what the Scotch whisky industry does for Scotland. It provides £1 billion-worth of exports, or 20 per cent. of our manufacturing exports. That is important for Scotland and we must continue to remind those who do not realise its value to Scotland that the Government's sensible tax regime over recent years has done much to help the Scotch whisky industry.
We also must not forget British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Ferranti. Aviation and avionics are the industries of tomorrow, among which we must include electronics. IBM, Motorola, Digital Equipment, NEC, National Semiconductor, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, NCR and Unisys are all the industries of today and tomorrow. They produce 16 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product and employ 12 per cent. of the work force. The output of the industry last year was three and a half times higher than in mid-1979. That shows what the Government's policies have done to make Scottish industry more competitive.
In 1989, the oil industry recorded the second highest level of drilling activity ever, with 328 offshore wells started. So much for the doom and gloom that we heard about the oil industry running down and out.
The service sector provides 68 per cent. of Scotland's employment, with over 1·3 million jobs. There was an overall increase of 112,000 in service sector employment from 1979 to December 1988. The service sector also helps Scotland's economic growth. The financial services and business services sector, with 179,000 jobs—50,000 more than in 1979—also contributes massively to Scotland's well-being.
Some £100 billion of funds is managed from Scotland. That is over 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom unit trust market and 20 per cent. of the life assurance market. The industry depends on doing business outside Scotland, as does the Scotch whisky industry and all the other

companies that I listed. So much for the narrow nationalist attitudes of those who say that we should do things only in Scotland.
Tourism is another important industry in Scotland. It must be discouraging for visitors to Scotland to see messages written on stone telling them to go home. Yet that is what one gets from the Socialist nationalists. Tourism had a turnover of £1,594 million in 1988. The number of overseas tourists was up by 27 per cent. on 1984. Scotland's penetration of the north American market is higher than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Again, Scotland is performing well. I make no apology for speaking about tourism. It is the largest employer in north Tayside.
I welcome the introduction of Scottish Enterprise. Recently in Brechin we had the launch of the north Angus initiative. The Labour administration of Tayside regional council was noticeable by its absence at that launch. It seems that the hon. Member for Dundee, East thinks that such great initiatives are fine in Dundee but not much good in Brechin, Kirriemuir or Forfar. The district councillor, the convener of industry—a gentleman known by the name of Forsyth of that ilk, who is an SNP councillor—made an attack on the regional council when he launched the initiative. He did so because of the council's absence. It is interesting that, since then, Councillor Sheana Welsh has publicly criticised me for agreeing with Forsyth. That Forsyth is the SNP district councillor, not my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
But what else can we expect when as Councillor Flora Isles said when she resigned from the SNP:
We have different policies in different parts of the country and different policies or no policies to meet changing circumstances"?
Indeed, that is why she resigned from the Scottish National party. Councillor Sheana Welsh, running true to SNP form, has a different policy and makes different public utterances from her industry convener—the famous Forsyth. Perhaps she was embarrassed by the "Absent Andrew", her husband, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who, like the Labour party, failed to attend the north Angus launch. Perhaps his failure to attend brought about yet another division in the SNP.
In connection with regional grants, I commend Don Brothers, who recently opened a large factory in my constituency despite the fact that no grants are available and he was given no assistance under any funny schemes run by the Labour administration in Tayside. I understand that Don Brothers gave up grants amounting to about £500,000, which he could have had if he had gone to Dundee, which he was asked to do. He declined to do that and stayed in Forfar because its work force and environment are so much better and more conducive to productivity and to exports than those in Dundee.
That is an example of why regional aid had, properly, to be changed. That is why I welcome the changes that the Government are making. I advise Ministers that the economic successes of our policies in Scotland are there for anyone who wants to see them. They can be seen in our supermarkets, stores and shops and in the bustle in the high streets—[Interruption]—even in Dundee. Opposition Members should go to Taybridge station and watch the people going on holiday and doing things that were not available to them 10 or 20 years ago. They are able to do


those things now because of our economic success. Because they have more money in their pockets, people can enjoy more things today.
The quality of life in Scotland is superior to that in any other part of the United Kingdom and that, linked to our economic success, makes it the best part of the United Kingdom in which to live and the best place in the world to be part of.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House of my earlier appeal for brief speeches.

Mr. James Wallace: I shall do my utmost to follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be brief.
The debate has gone up or down according to one's expectations. One need only read the Order Paper, the substantive motion and amendment in the name of the Prime Minister to note the diametrically opposed views on the Scottish economy. Indeed, I wonder whether they referred to the same thing. We have, of course, had selective statistics to support either case, especially from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in two particulars. He was the first hon. Member to refer to tourism, which is an important and growing industry in the rural areas of Scotland, and he referred to the whisky industry which, as in his constituency, is important in mine.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North referred to the Scottish chambers' "Business Survey". It is important to note that its most recent survey is its most pessimistic since its surveys began in 1984. That pessimism has been echoed in the "Industrial Trends Survey" of the Confederation of British Industry, which shows that manufacturing optimism is at its lowest for seven years.
Hon. Members of all parties have accepted that in recent years the Scottish economy has been going through a period of fundamental change as the old smoke stack industries have declined and we have looked to the development of new industries. As electronics has been around for some time, I am not sure whether we can still classify it as a new industry, but it has a potential for growth. Reference has also been made to the oil and gas industry and to the financial services sector. As the older industries decline, it is important that we do not forget the economic consequences. If the Scottish steel industry were to decline even further, it would have severe implications for the rail network in Scotland and knock-on effects on the electricity industry. Such factors cannot be overlooked.
There are other warning signs because much of the growth in jobs in recent years has been in the service sector, and, as last week's report "Economic Outlook" from the Royal Bank of Scotland suggested, the current downturn will squeeze the service sector, especially the retail sector, more than the last recession in the early part of the 1980s. Therefore, the outlook in that sector is not encouraging.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) referred to Locate in Scotland. None of my hon. Friends would criticise or object to jobs coming to Scotland as a result of foreign companies investing here. However, we should be concerned to ensure that we do not become

dependent solely on jobs which, in many respects, are production jobs and that we try to create as many jobs as possible that are high-quality, high-tech jobs. We should ensure that we are designers as well as putters-together, if I may put it that way.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a report that the Secretary of State attributed to an official of the Scottish Development Agency. It contained the sombre warning that the contribution of indigenously based industries is particularly disappointing. The loss of Scottish ownership of Scottish enterprises has already been mentioned. It has been estimated that fewer than 100 clearly definable Scottish companies are now listed on the stock exchange. Between 1983 and 1986, 321 Scottish companies were taken over by outside companies. Some of the names are well known, including Anderson of Strathclyde, Collins, Clydesdale bank, Bells and Distillers.
While that has been happening and Scotland has been losing some of its big companies, as Alf Young pointed out in a recent article in the Glasgow Herald, things on not too happy a note have been stirring at a lower level in the economy. He wrote:
If many of the biggest trees in the Scottish corporate forest fell to the chainsaws wielded by Guinness, Vantona Viyella, BP, Charter Consolidated and many others over the past 10 years, the paucity of seedling companies springing up from the forest floor to take their place simply compounds the problem.
That is a cause for concern.
If one takes the number of new small businesses that are being set up, by reference to net VAT registrations, one sees that the growth in Scotland has been significantly below that in the United Kingdom as a whole. The article then states that a number of our smaller and medium-sized companies have been selling out, although they may not have made the headlines as much as the bigger companies, and that fewer of those smaller and medium-sized companies then grow into big companies. Consequently, there will be fewer opportunities in Scotland for our graduates to take jobs in promotable posts and fewer opportunities for our managers to reach the top in commercial enterprise.
As has been said, there has been emigration over many years, but the quality as well as the quantity of that emigration causes concern. Many of our best people and our graduates are going south. The introduction of the student loans scheme may affect the number of graduates in Scotland because of our four-year courses. If Scottish graduates have that debt around their necks as they leave university, how many of them will be attractive propositions to banks if they then wish to set up a small business on their own? I believe that for many years to come we shall reap an adverse whirlwind from the student loans plan.
Enterprise in Scotland needs encouraging. In the White Paper that foreshadowed the Employment Bill, the Government identified the importance of training. They have admitted that the private sector has never been a good trainer in Scotland, yet they are passing responsibility for training to the private sector. If that is to happen, it is important that it works, and that it works well.
I took some encouragement from the reply that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) gave me at Scottish Question Time last week, when he seemed to suggest that there would be scope for the


local enterprise companies to develop training over and above the national training schemes of employment training and the youth training scheme. Perhaps he will say more about that when he replies to the debate and state whether more money will be available for training or whether the only money that is being made available for training with the LECs will be the money that is available for funding ET and YTS.
In addition, there is a need for venture capital. There has been a lack of venture capital going into Scottish companies, particularly for start-up. One often finds a willingness to lend £1 million or £100,000, but in some cases what is needed is £10,000. In fact, 80 per cent. of applications to the Highlands and Islands Development Board are for grants up to £15,000. Such grants have been very important to people, particularly in the highlands and islands, starting small businesses. As the board's last annual report shows, the cost per job, in grant-equivalent terms, has been just over £6,000.
That seems to me to be money very well spent. Government Members and their kin in the City often criticise Scotland for having, in some ways, developed a dependency culture, but without the HIDB and the SDA our economic position would be far worse. The £22 million that the HIDB spent on grant assistance in 1988 produced £69 million from private sources. That seems to me a very good form of pump priming, and I hope that that valuable work will continue as we move over to the new system.
In addition to venture capital and training, we need a Scottish Parliament. No doubt Government members will tell us happily about the statistics, about the polls carried out among Scottish business men, showing that a Scottish Parliament is not tops among the things that those people would like to see. Within the last two or three weeks, Scotland on Sunday carried an article, written anonymously by a Scottish business man, putting the case for a Scottish Parliament. It says something about the climate of Scottish business that somebody putting his head above the parapet to support a Scottish Parliament feels that he has to do so anonymously. This is the bunker mentality.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I agree that people should be prepared to put their names to things in which they believe. Why did the Social and Liberal Democrats fail to table an amendment to this motion?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the matter was discussed last night at a parliamentary party meeting, and it was decided that the motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends was one that we could support.
I believe that a Scottish Parliament would be much more in touch with the continuing development needs of Scottish industry. I have already mentioned how it could target its tax-cutting powers; how it could look into the possibility of lower interest rates and the setting up of an industrial credit bank. Consider the situation in West Germany, where power is diffuse, where there is a federal structure. One often finds businesses being set up in centres of power. In many ways, centres of power attract new business. I believe that a Scottish Parliament could be a catalyst and could add some dynamism to the Scottish economy.
As one looks forward to 1992, one is conscious of the need for an improved transport infrastructure. The hon. Member for Tayside, North, who has left the Chamber, referred to the importance of Scotland's export industries. He mentioned whisky and office equipment. Clearly, in the case of an economy that is so dependent on exports, access to markets is important. I remember going to the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when the Portobello Freightliner terminal was being closed. At the time, that seemed to be a very short-sighted move, and experience has shown just how short-sighted. Our European competitors are improving their infrastructure, particularly in the case of railways, while the Government here seem to baulk at extending electrification north of Edinburgh.
Take the question of air transport. Currently, and quite properly, there is a debate on the future of Prestwick. In this regard, I think that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will find that my views do not differ much from his. This is the focus of Scottish debate at a time when, for example, the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris is being integrated with the whole transport network—linking it to the city and to the rest of the country. While these imaginative things are being done by our European competitors, little imagination is being used here. I certainly do not count a toll bridge to Skye as one of the imaginative projects that we need if we are to compete on equal terms.
Finally, I want to refer briefly to the fishing industry, which is so important to many communities round our coast. When the Government failed to embark on a decommissioning scheme, they missed an opportunity. It was a big mistake. Of course it would not have been the whole answer, but I cannot see a better way of ensuring that the capacity of the fleet is more in line with the catching opportunities. If the fishing opportunities of the industry are to be reduced, it must be given some financial compensation. One wonders what kind of fleet the Government expect to see at the end of this year if they allow pure market forces to take their course.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has made a number of points to which I want to refer later. He referred to the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) from the Chamber. I should point out that my hon. Friend is attending a Committee meeting upstairs.
I apologise to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches for my absence during the opening few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was having a personal meeting with the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was about the Armitage Shanks Tubal works in Barrhead. I want to thank the Minister of State and a large number of Opposition Members for their support in that regard. It is an issue of great importance to my constituency.

Mr. William McKelvey: rose—

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman has signed my early-day motion, I will certainly give way to him.

Mr. McKelvey: I wish the hon. Gentleman every success when he meets the Prime Minister. I hope that she will be able to do something about Armitage Shanks. When I


went to see her about the Armitage Shanks closure in Kilmarnock, she said that she would do her best. Unfortunately, however, the closure took place. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's support at that time, and respected him for giving it. Indeed, I received support from other hon. Members. I cautioned the hon. Gentleman not to put too much faith in the Prime Minister's ability to do anything against a multinational that is determined to move elsewhere.

Mr. Stewart: The purpose of my meeting was to look to the future in Barrhead. Armitage Shanks has, indeed, confirmed its decision to close the Tubal works. When I went with a letter from the Prime Minister to discuss the situation I was prevented from passing the factory gate. That is an indication of the company's management.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, rightly, to the importance of transport policy. As he said, we await the decision on Scottish lowlands airports policy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot possibly be expected, in this debate, to announce a decision; that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. However, anything that he can tell the House about the timing of the announcement would be helpful to hon. Members in respect of the positions that they may take.
While I am on that point, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord King on his excellent announcement about the Scottish headquarters for British Airways and the intention to provide a service from Glasgow to New York, starting on 3 August, if the Secretary of State for Transport takes the correct decision on airports policy.
I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the importance of the imaginative set of proposals for the development of the corridor. These will turn on Glasgow's getting transatlantic status. There is immense potential for new growth in that area of west central Scotland—and that is not just my opinion; it is an opinion shared by others, such as the Labour group in Renfrew district council.
More generally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North have put forward very clearly and comprehensively the basic figures on the Scottish economy. Manufacturing output is now the highest in Scotland's economic history. One has only to look at the CBI's figures on output and employment.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who is also attending a Standing Committee meeting, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland both referred to the need for indigenous growth in the Scottish economy. That is a very important point. The self-employment figures have increased by about 50 per cent. since 1981, compared with no change at all in the previous three decades. Many of these people will in future need small, medium-sized and large firms in Scotland. The other most encouraging indicator for the future is that manufacturing productivity in Scotland in recent years has been as high as in any other industrialised country and higher than most.
When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I wondered why the Opposition had chosen to debate the Scottish economy today. I hoped that we would hear concrete proposals from the Labour party about how it would tackle the problems, as it sees them, of the Scottish economy. We have had some proposals. The hon. Member

for Dundee, East talked in ringing terms about the importance of a Scottish Parliament, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
We know of the enthusiasm of the Opposition Benches for that important body. No doubt if I took a show of hands, most Opposition Members would put up their hands. I see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvy) putting up his hand. If such a body were set up, no doubt Opposition Members would give up their seats in this place to serve in it. May we have a show of hands to see which hon. Members agree with that? I see that Opposition Members are about 50:50. If there is ever a Scottish assembly, we look forward to by-elections in Scotland.
The Labour party proposes that the new body would have economic and industrial responsibilities. We are also told that the new powerhouse of Scottish Socialism would have responsibility for inward investment. No doubt hoardings would go up from Massachusetts to Mississippi and from Los Angeles to Long Island saying, "Come to sunny Scotland. We can offer you what no other European country can—Socialism." But there would need to be a footnote—"except Albania." Only in Albania and on the Benches occupied by Scottish Labour Members is there any following left for Socialism in Europe.

Mr. Wallace: Does not the hon. Gentleman presuppose that that would be a Scottish Parliament elected without proportional representation? Would he change his mind if there was proportional representation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please keep to the motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland thinks that the Labour party will go for proportional representation, he will have a sad awakening.
The second proposal from the Opposition was on business rates. The important progress towards a unified business rate, which the entire business community, large and small, has underlined as of crucial importance to the future of Scottish business and industry, would be thrown away by the Labour party. There would be huge increases in the burden of rates.
Of course, local authorities have a tendency to increase the burden on non-domestic ratepayers, because businesses do not have votes. The burden of the increase on businesses is often passed on to consumers who live outside the area. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) replies to the debate, he may confirm his belief, which I have heard in the past, that rates have no effect on jobs. That is not the view of any business man to whom I have talked on the subject.
We also heard a proposal from some Opposition Members for a roof tax. That was well analysed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. It is interesting to note the rumours that the Labour party in England would not go ahead with that proposal. No doubt, in the next 24 hours or so, we will hear another authorised version from the Opposition.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State may have been slightly unfair to the roof tax in his general criticisms. The roof tax would be good news for some parts of the Scottish economy. It would be good news for that admirable body of people, double glazing salesmen, and for central heating engineers, because their products are to be exempt from the general increase in taxation which


would follow other house improvements. But it would be bad news for precisely the people upon whom the future of the Scottish economy most depends—those who are trying to improve themselves as workers, managers and entrepreneurs, who are upwardly mobile and who wish to move, naturally and properly into better housing for themselves and their families. They are classically the people, as well as the elderly, who would be hit by the absurd proposal.
We have heard from the Opposition the usual parroting of doom and gloom. We have heard complaints not solutions, and problems not answers. Yet again, the Labour party has confirmed that it has nothing new to offer. It has forgotten nothing and learnt nothing from its period of power.
I compliment my right hon. and hon. Friends on their common-sense policies, which are steadily turning the Scottish economy round. I wish them every success in continuing with those policies.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As my old granny would have said, February is always a dull month. That speech fairly shortened the winter, but that is about all it did. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) started off not too badly, but he drifted into his usual rambling. If the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was that of a teetotaller, he should try taking a dram now and again.
I want to put on record my thanks to BP, with which I have not always enjoyed the best relationship, for its massive investment in the petrochemical industry at Grangemouth in my constituency. The investment will provide some new jobs, but it will certainly secure existing jobs. I understand the annoyance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) with BP because of its involvement with Britoil. In my defence, I warned the House, on the day of the announcement that BP was being given Britoil, what would happen. The takeover of Britoil has had precisely the outcome I expected. However, on a constituency basis, I record my thanks for that massive investment.
I also want to thank the Secretary of State for Energy. As the House knows, I have been campaigning, sometimes alone, against the application by Shell Exxon to construct a pipeline from Grangemouth to Manchester to pipe all the ethylene manufactured at the most northern plant down to England. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for refusing the application; he has informed me that he has ordered a public inquiry.
I hope that all the parties will examine carefully the proposal to construct a pipeline. As I have said often, the future of downstream industries in west central Scotland depends on the retention of ethylene. A pipeline from Grangemouth to Manchester would leave only one gap in the ethylene grid. If companies could move ethylene about as if jobs did not matter, they would do so to the detriment of almost every area where petrochemicals are based. Therefore, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Energy for ordering a public inquiry.
The hon. Member for Eastwood sounded hollow when he talked about the industry's rates and business rates and general rates on people. I live with the abiding memory of

when he was a Minister in the Scottish Office. The then Government introduced legislation to derate the plant and machinery outside buildings, which cost Central regional council £8 million of rateable value.
I took a deputation from Central regional council to see the Minister in his ivory tower at Dover house to ask the Government to make good the shortfall that his legislation had caused in rate income for Central regional and Falkirk district councils. The Minister said, "Your rates in Central region are below the national average per head of the population, so I shall not give you any money. The increase in rates for Falkirk district council of 6p in the pound and for Central region of 4p in the pound will only bring you up to the national average." Now the hon. Gentleman has the gall to criticise local authorities for increasing rates.
I wanted to make that point before the Tories in Scotland started an attack on local authorities about rates in the run-up to the regional elections. The hon. Gentleman's expressions of concern about rate levels sounded hollow when set against the background of the Labour party's proposals on what has been described as the roof tax.
Last night I made an offer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North that I extend to any Scottish Conservative Member. It will not take me long to go round the Scottish Conservative constituencies. I am not contesting the next election and as we run up to it I shall have time on my hands, so I offer to come to any Conservative seat, providing the sitting Member of Parliament makes the arrangements and debate the merits of the poll tax against the Labour party's proposals. That offer is on the table.
I shall take up two points made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North, possibly the only two serious points in his speech. The first concerns the export of whisky. One decision that has been taken in relation to the construction of the Channel tunnel is that whisky in bulk form—this should be a warning to all of us who enjoy a glass now and then—is so volatile that it will not be allowed to go through the Channel Tunnel. Three commodities will not be allowed through the tunnel: liquid petroleum gas, liquid chemicals, and whisky. Therefore, it is fairly obvious that all the exports of Scottish whisky will have to go by sea. What is the Scottish Office doing to ensure that the exports go through Scottish ports? What is now happening is absolute madness.
The second serious point made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North involved general exports from Scotland. During the past 10 years—and, I admit, just a wee bit longer than that—the volume of exports of manufactured goods originating in Scotland, going out through Scottish ports, has dropped from 75 per cent. to about 18 per cent. That is an absolute disgrace.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked about the closure of the terminal at Leith. It was closed because the shipowners introduced the grid system. Whisky that is manufactured in Perth is taken by road—at no cost to the exporter and manufacturer because it is paid for by the ship owner—to the non-scheme port of Felixstowe, from where it is exported. Of course, they are all non-scheme ports now. That is done on the basis that it is cheaper to take the goods by road than to steam the vessel up to Grangemouth or Glasgow.
That policy is all right until all the Scottish ports are closed down, and we are heading that way. We shall then


see what happens to the grid system. It will be abolished overnight. The whisky industry is important and the Government should consider those two aspects of it.
The Scottish economy is fragile, and the Minister would mislead the House if he sought to pretend otherwise. All the surveys to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred prove the validity of that point. Anyone who is complacent about the future of the Scottish economy will have to answer to the people who will lose their jobs as a result of an upturn in unemployment.
Like other hon. Members, I speak to industrialists. None of them says that he is confident about the next 18 months or two to three years. They are all looking ahead to difficult times. I was horrified when, over Christmas and the new year, I saw a Minister on Scottish television arguing that high interest rates were good for the Scottish economy because they made us work harder and become more efficient. The Secretary of State hinted at that, too. I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
The Minister should acknowledge that, far from being good, high interest rates are damaging. We need to keep a careful watch on the development of our economy. I look forward to the day, not too far distant, when the responsibility for running the economy is in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and his colleagues.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I was going to open my speech by saying that I thought that Labour and Tory Members had a psychological problem when debating the Scottish economy. After listening to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), perhaps I should say that they have a geographical problem as well.
Labour and Tory Members suffer from the delusion that Scotland is a poor dependent economy that will always rely on the good will of the Westminster Government. I want to make the opposite case in terms of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. Scotland is an exceptionally rich country, but its economy is being mismanaged and its assets are being pillaged.
No one, including the present Chancellor, the past Chancellor, and even the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was in charge of the Scottish economy, would prescribe the present level of interest rates, given the level of demand in the Scottish economy. I have an impeccable source for this view—no other than the vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, Mr. Bill Hughes, who, with engaging candour, said on 29 June last year on Radio 4:
we have to periodically endure the higher interest rates because that is for the better end of the total United Kingdom economy. I think that this is a very fair trade off.
I suspect that Scottish manufacturing industry, which, because of the at least 5 per cent. surcharge in interest rates in the Scottish economy, is facing additional borrowings—that is, taxation—of £200 million, might think differently. Scottish farmers who face additional borrowings of £50 million and the hard-pressed Scottish fishing industry that faces additional borrowings of up to £10 million might also think differently.
Earlier the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Scottish economy was not overheating. He did not go on to explain why we should have a level of interest rates that

was appropriate only, if at all, for an economy that was overheating. Will Tory Ministers accept that, whatever the present level of activity in the Scottish economy, it would be higher if we had a level of interest rates appropriate to Scottish economic conditions.
When we debate the Scottish economy, the Secretary of State for Scotland always clutches at straws. Last year in the Scottish Grand Committee he clutched at the straw of a Fraser of Allander Institute report that he found sympathetic to his case. However, when we read the report in detail we found that it warned of the damage that would be done to an investment/export economy such as Scotland by higher interest rates.
During Scottish questions in December, the Secretary of State quoted, in glowing terms, a Royal Bank of Scotland report that argued that Scottish growth this year might be marginally higher than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. I took the trouble to examine that economic analysis in detail. The relevant passage reads:
Demand is, consequently, marginally stronger in relative terms and may well result in a better Scottish growth performance in 1990 (perhaps 2 per cent.—2·5 per cent.) than in the UK as a whole—little comfort given that the demand-dampening policies in force just now were aimed at cooling the overheated south-east and will still leave Scottish employment and output levels lagging well behind the national average.
The Secretary of State cited that report favourably. If he cites the forecast favourably, does he accept the analysis that accompanied that report?
There are two reasons why the Secretary of State would be unwise to rely on favourable short-term forecasts for the Scottish economy. The first is obvious. Earlier tonight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the industrial production figures and said that they showed that the Scottish economy was doing particularly well. However, the index of industrial production, minus class 13—investment in oil and gas—shows a different picture. Minus class 13, the latest figures for industrial production for Scotland show a 10 per cent. Increase since 1985. The comparable figures for the United Kingdom show a 19 per cent. increase.
The evidence is clear. There is not a general economic recovery in Scotland, relative even to the modest improvement in the United Kingdom economy. There is an investment surge in the North sea now because of strengthening oil prices, but I doubt whether even the Secretary of State wants to take credit for that.
There is a more serious reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be unwise to rely on short-term forecasts. No economic forecast can cope with the impact of a major industrial collapse, but the Scottish economy now faces at least two clear dangers of collapse in core industries.
The first is the steel industry. From the position of jobs related immediately to steel—that is, people working directly in the steel industry and for the suppliers of steel—it is clear that at least 25,000 jobs are at stake. Taking a broader picture, and including industries which are dependent on the supply of steel—and are therefore dependent on the pricing and source pricing of steel—that figure could be expanded to well over 100,000.
The second is the fishing industry, on which 30,000 jobs in Scotland depend. The Secretary of State said yesterday that the fishermen were rich and did not need any Government help. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have no compassion for family businesses


which are caught in a cost-revenue squeeze? A constituent of mine has had his boat sold by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. He got for it one third of the price at which it was valued a few months ago. As a result, he is in danger of losing not only his job, his boat and his livelihood but his home and everything else.
Has the Secretary of State no compassion for fish processing workers earning less than £100 a week who are being offered by their employers a zero per cent. wage round—no increase whatever in their pay? Will the Government not dip into their pocket and provide for the Scottish fishing industry even the same level of support that is available to every other European fishing industry?
I took part in a BBC television programme shortly after the turn of the new year, in which people were asked to comment on Scotland's economic prospects in the 1990s. I was struck by the remarks of David Murray, who the Government will undoubtedly say is a model Scottish business man, and he deserves that title. He did not in that programme speak of some major industrial renaissance for Scotland. He spoke of his real concerns about the level of external ownership in the Scottish economy and about the damage being done to his and other business by high interest rates.
Even more disturbing than the present situation is the total lack of vision in Government economic policy to meet the challenges of this decade and those of the next century. The only strategy that this Government have ever had for the Scottish economy has been the attraction of mobile international investment. Yet it is clear that international investment will become tougher to attract because of competition not simply from Ireland and southern Europe but also from eastern Europe. That strategy has only limited potential in the present decade.
We should be moving to a natural resource-based economic policy instead of either demand-managed economy or policies based on attracting international investment. We have not done well so far. In the last decade, £87 billion of oil revenues went straight to the London Exchequer. That represented £17,000 a head for every man, woman and child in Scotland. We should remember that when the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Under-Secretary—and his fan club of Sudeten Scots who disrupt Scottish Question Time tell us how lucky Scots are to experience the munificence of the Westminster Exchequer. It would not be so bad if we did not have the knowledge that it is Scottish assets which have bankrolled the Thatcher economic experiment for the past 10 years.
Announcements in recent days show that the great gas robbery planned for the 1990s will be even worse than the great oil robbery of the 1980s. At least the oil was landed in Scotland and we received some direct jobs impact. The gas from the central North sea that Amoco is taking to Teesside will not even touch Scotland.
The implications of that are severe. First and obviously, the petrochemical and downstream jobs will go to the north-east of England. They are severe, secondly, because of the plan to construct a 1,750 MW power station at Welton, near Redcar. Perhaps when he replies to the debate the Minister will say how he intends to sell Scottish electricity, generated by coal or nuclear power, twice or, in

the case of nuclear, perhaps five times as expensively as gas power over the border when faced with competition from a power station of that magnitude.
There are even more serious implications. What energy intensive industry will locate in central Scotland when it can get more favourable electricity prices by locating in the north-east of England? Labour Members should be able to think of at least one major energy-intensive industry in central Scotland which is currently making the choice between a Scottish and a north-east of England location.
I have no doubt that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, remembering that the Labour party initiated this debate, will wish to say whether they intend to oppose the plan to send North sea gas from the central North sea to Teesside rather than to a Scottish landfall point.
We in Scotland face a basic choice: either we use our immense resources quite literally to power an efficient competitive Scottish economy in Europe, or we continue with a situation, under any Westminster Government, by which our economy is mismanaged, our resources pillaged, our industry decimated and our nation humiliated. If we are prepared to put up with that, we will be what Carlyle once called the English—"a nation of fools."

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am anxious to raise a point with you now so that the Minister is able to respond when he replies to the debate.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland seriously misled the House by claiming that a document to which the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), referred extensively had been reported in the Glasgow Herald on 12 December. Clearly, that was intended to mislead the House and the Press Gallery. I have with me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a Minister deliberately misled the House. He knows that that would be out of order.

Mr. Wilson: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he must have done so inadvertently, although the consequence is the same. In advance of the Minister of State replying to the debate, I shall be happy to give him a copy of the newspaper in question so that he may quote the source, because it would be an intolerable abuse of the House if that tactic were used to mislead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order for the Chair.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: We must remember when we talk about the Scottish economy that it is made up of a conglomeration of local economies. The Minister of State will agree that the retention of profitable firms is as important an object as the creation of jobs.
That being so, I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his good offices to intervene in the dispute between Suter Estates of London and the Drummond Packaging Company of Greenock. Many jobs are at stake. The London company is seeking to remove Drummond Packaging from its premises in Greenock. It would be disastrous if that


happened. The Minister is aware of the severity of the unemployment problems of Inverclyde. Will his officials intervene in the matter?
The French parent company of Drummond Packaging offered Suter Estates, which owns the land, £1·4 million. That was rejected, and Drummonds entered into discussions with the Inverclyde district council to purchase land on which to build customised premises. The buildings should be completed at the end of November this year, but Suter Estates, the London-based property company, is telling Drummonds to quit by mid-summer. If that happens, several score of my constituents will be put out of work. I hope that the Minister will intervene in that important matter.
I said that I would be brief and I shall be. However, I should like to speak for two minutes on that once magnificent industry, which is now but a remnant of its former glory—the shipbuildng and marine engineering industry.
What recent discussions have the Minister or his officials had with their colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about the European Community directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? That is an important form of aid to shipyards. Will the Minister say how many Scottish shipyards have access to that form of European Community subsidy? I make a plea on behalf of Scott Lithgow—a company which, until now, has been denied access to that form of subsidy—that it be given sympathetic consideration because what we are seeing Europewide, and it is a welcome development, is a full capacity of berths in shipyards.
Some experts estimate that, within the next two or three years, European yards will be short of between 35 and 50 berths to build vessels. I know of European shipping lines that are now seeking tenders from British shipyards, but in some cases those shipyards—and Scott Lithgow is one of them—have had to turn away those notifications of interest because they do not have access to that type of subsidy. That is a disgrace if there is a European Communitywide subsidy for the shipbuilding industry. Firms such as Scott Lithgow and Fergussons are denied the opportunity of recruiting, selecting and employing highly skilled adult males. There are too many such men on the dole in my constituency.
I understand that Caledonian MacBrayne will have to replace up to four major and four minor passenger ferry vessels over the next five years. That figure was given to me in an answer by the Under-Secretary some days ago. I make a plea for those orders to go to Scottish yards. It does not embarras me to say that some of those orders should come to Fergussons in Port Glasgow. It is a first-class, small ship, specialist yard. Some of the Scottish orders that the Secretary of State now signs because, in essence, he is Mr. Caledonian MacBrayne should be built in Aberdeen and in Port Glasgow.
Kvaerner of Govan, Yarrow, Hall Russell, Fergussons and Kincaids are the remnants of this once great industry. The shipbuilding industry uses modern electronics and employs highly skilled labour. Over the next two years, the Government should seek to defend the interests of those employed in that industry or who could find employment in it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): Anyone listening to the speech of the Secretary of State could be forgiven for thinking that the production of candy floss was a major growth industry in the Scottish office—it was bright and cheerful but when you bite into it you find it lacks substance and nourishment. Anyone sitting at home watching this debate on television, who used to work a Caterpillar, at Linwood, at one of the shipyards, or anywhere else that has lost jobs, and who is eking out his unemployment benefit, must be sick to the back teeth by what we have heard from Scottish Office Ministers today.
It is not good enough to respond to this serious matter by bandying statistics about the 1960s and 1970s and who was responsible for what and when. The truth is that there has been a long-term decline in Scottish industry for more than a century, as other industrial nations have equalled and surpassed our output and brought in orders in sectors where we have formerly had an unrivalled lead. There is no point in ignoring that fact—it is the future that matters, so let us concentrate on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to the unpublished reports written by the university of Louvain, which forecast a sharp decline in Britain's industrial areas and a massive increase in job losses as a result of the introduction of the European single market. The report specifically mentions Strathclyde as one of the areas for which it forecasts dire results. It pointed out that coal and steel-producing areas would suffer from competition.
The Government have asked what answers the Opposition have. The Louvain report came up with some of the answers, but we have heard nothing about that from the Government today. The report says that the problems are related to insufficient investment in railways, to widespread dereliction, to the dearth of investment and to a shortage of professional expertise—the report calls it an "exodus of grey matter" to the south-east, where clearly jobs and promotions exist.
Business men and local authorities are pessimistic about the single market because they fear that American and Japanese companies will move to the continent, with a consequent loss of orders for suppliers and a loss of customers for small businesses in the surrounding areas.
The absence of regional government in Britain is an extremely important aspect of the debate, and Louvain also mentioned it as something which has hindered progress in Scotland. In North Rhine Westphalia the Government provide up to 10 times as much money for research and development in industry as the Department of Trade and Industry does in England. Whatever the figures may be for Scotland, it is certainly not as good as 10 times that of England.
Firms in my constituency have expressed anxiety about the future. Some of the construction firms are steady at present, but they are faced with Europewide competition for orders of quite modest value. How can that contribute to forward planning and job security for the work forces?
A clothing manufacturer in Maryhill sees the dangers of competition from Germany; West German manufacturers have already obtained supplies from East German sources at a lower cost than can be obtained here. The textile industry has already had a series of redundancies in the Borders and elsewhere as a result of decreased orders and falling sales.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for standing back and allowing me to speak. His attitude is a contrast to that of the Secretary of State, who has the habit of constantly referring to "hon. Gentlemen opposite". He does not seem to notice that Scotland has three women Members of Parliament. We are sitting here, but we seem to be invisible. I have often seen reports that refer to women as an under-used resource. Women are also described as an invisible resource. I thought that that was an exaggerated description until I entered the House a couple of years ago and observed the conduct of Conservative Members such as the Secretary of State, who do not even recognise our existence.
Although female unemployment is approximately one third of male unemployment, far too many women are in low-paid or part-time jobs with no prospects or training opportunities. Women need not only training schemes but time off to take part in them, and we need far more child care provision. If Britain could provide child care on the scale that it did during the second world war, when we were fighting an enemy for our very existence, surely we can provide child care when we are fighting for our economic existence.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in his excellent speech asked why the Labour party had chosen to have this debate on the Scottish economy. Having listened to it, I share his curiosity, because nothing that has emerged has in any way advanced its cause one bit.
With policy documents falling thick and fast from the Labour party, rather like leaves in autumn and with roughly the same life expectancy, it occurred to me that, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a genuine and authoritative document, he was referring to the industry policy document that the Labour party published this week entitled "Fulfilling our future: Industry 2000". But when I looked through it and found almost nothing of policy but rather a lot of wind and verbiage, I realised that he could not have that in mind.
I am not surprised that such a vacuous document has been presented this week. The Labour party may want to conceal the fact that its industrial policy in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change", which was published last year and ratified by the 1989 Labour party conference, contains such policies as a payroll tax on all Scottish business based on turnover, or a commitment to renationalise British Telecom, British Gas and the water and electricity industries, or the plan to legalise secondary picketing and to allow unions to call strikes before a ballot has been called. No wonder it is not keen to draw attention to that. Perhaps the next policy document will be called "Back to the Drawing Board".
After the Labour party's drubbing over its proposals for a roof tax from every commentator throughout Scotland, after the revelation of its jobs tax, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State drew attention in his opening speech, whereby already an extra £130 million would have been taken out of Scottish businesses, after its earlier commitment to a payroll tax,

after the revelation in its local government finance document of its intention to put the Scottish Enterprise initiative into the hands of the local authorities, and after its already well-known plans to introduce a tax-raising assembly in Scotland, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Garscadden should fall back on selective quotations from a discussion paper of no status whatever, the substance of which was reported in an article by Alastair Balfour in the Glasgow Herald in December. [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?"] I think that it was 30 December—at the end of last year.
I would prefer to rely on some of the surveys that have been coming out from responsible and recognised bodies such as the Fraser of Allander survey which referred to growth continuing over the next five years, a survey which prompted The Scotsman to headline an article
Outlook brightens for Scots economy in 1990s
Who am I to argue with The Scotsman?

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lang: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, since he has not spoken.

Mr. Kirkwood: As the Minister is busy talking about surveys, has he undertaken any surveys of the state of the Scottish fishing industry? Is he aware that earlier this week 130 jobs were lost in Holmac Seafoods in my constituency? If he undertook such a survey, he would get some fairly dire results.

Mr. Lang: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to develop his point in due course, but I want to reply to the points that were raised in the debate.
The survey by Cambridge Econometrics suggested that the Scottish economy grew more rapidly than that of the United Kingdom last year and will do so this year. The CBI survey suggested that output would rise faster in the United Kingdom, and there was more optimism about exports and employment increasing in Scotland in the year ahead while it is falling in the United Kingdom. There was similar optimism in the business strategy survey and the Building Employers Confederation survey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) recounted the successful growth of most of Scotland's major industrial companies. No wonder the Labour party is forced to talk about relative decline when there has been so much growth and increased prosperity, with the average income of Scots rising by a third over the past decade, compared with absolute decline under the previous Labour Government.
It is interesting to reflect that, between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, manufacturing industry declined more steeply in the United Kingdom than in Scotland. Today, Scottish manufacturing output and GDP are at their highest ever levels. The latest figures show GDP per head in Scotland to be some 3 per cent. above the United Kingdom average, excluding the south-east. That is hardly symptomatic of an economy in relative decline.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the Louvain report, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It was originally prepared in French and it may have lost something in translation, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have accorded the opposite view of the state of Strathclyde, as summarised in the report, to the


reality. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a translation. Referring to Strathclyde and its technological position, the report said:
Strathclyde is, in fact distinguished from all other regions studied by a distinctly weaker presence of traditional sectors … and in comparison with other regions of Europe which are characterised with traditional industries has a better representation of advanced technology activities in its territories.
That is the opposite of the point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), referred to expenditure in docklands and sought to compare that adversely with—

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House was misled earlier and I have drawn attention to that. The Secretary of State, having looked for a reference to cancel out my point, came back with another reference to the article. In doing so, he sought, for the benefit of the press, to devalue the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred. I have now found the article which the Secretary of State claimed establishes his case, but it made no reference to the report. Let me quote the last paragraph.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty in finding a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point for debate, not a point of order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Wilson: I shall come to the point of order and to do so I shall quote the last paragraph of the article by Alastair Balfour in the Glasgow Herald. It says:
The State of our Nation in this last decade of the century is poor, and getting worse. The pity is that so few recognise it and fewer still are ready to address it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Wilson: The House has been misled twice in order to disinform the press.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lang: The article in question was wrong and so the paragraph in it is wrong.

Mr. Dewar: I have not had time to study the article, but I want to be clear what the Minister of State is saying. Is he telling me that the article of 30 December by Alastair Balfour specifically referred to the document from which I was quoting and deals with its contents?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the substance of the article—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may check that in Hansard. But as the substance of the report is incorrect, and as it was not accepted by the Scottish Development Agency-—[Interruption.]

Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you not going to reprimand the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for throwing a newspaper across the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) regrets the action that he has just taken and I hope that he will feel it appropriate to apologise to the House.

Mr. Wilson: I overestimated my strength, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The second copy of the newspaper was meant to land alongside the first. I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has apologised and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Lang: The relative comparison is not with the United Kingdom's economy—

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Misleading the House used to be a very serious matter. It is now taken as a matter of course.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: rose in his
place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed
to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 275.

Division No. 70]
[7' pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Fearn, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John


Buckley, George J.
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gould, Bryan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Crowther, Stan
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)






Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Geraint
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Redmond, Martin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Ruddock, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Salmond, Alex


Leighton, Ron
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sillars, Jim


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Wall, Pat


Maxton, John
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michael, Alun
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow,C)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray, Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Nellist, Dave



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William
Mr.Frank Haynes and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. KenEastham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aitken, Jonathan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)


Bellingham, Henry
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Buck, Sir Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burns, Simon





Burt, Alistair
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butler, Chris
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Patrick
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knox, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Franks, Cecil
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Gow, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morris, M (N'hamptonS)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grist, Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hague, William
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Talton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holt, Richard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim






Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Riddick, Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shelton, Sir William
Walden, George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Harts N)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr.David Lightbown and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. TomSackville.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put
forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the success of their economic policies in Scotland which have resulted in higher living standards, greatly reduced unemployment, a substantial increase in the workforce in employment, and record levels of manufacturing productivity and output; have promoted the competitiveness of Scottish industry and its readiness to meet the challenge of the Single European Market; have encouraged the growth of investment of enterprise and small businesses, and have provided a basis for sustained growth and development across the economy as a whole; and notes that unemployment is now falling faster in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

King's Cross Railways Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.—[The Chairman of Was and Means.]

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am most grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for facilitating this debate. I thought that I might have to begin by introducing myself to right hon. and hon. Members, because I have been so long detained outside the Chamber that hon. Members may have forgotten who I am. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never".] Indeed, since 27 June last year—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: May I say that my hon. Friend will always be remembered a s a shining wit?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has merely stolen one of my spoonerisms.
Since 27 June last year I have had the honour and privilege of chairing the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill, which, while not exactly the greatest show on earth, has added to the gaiety of nations and augmented the public stock of harmless pleasure from the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall. We have sat in public on 33 days since, and we have had one private session and also one site visit.
I have emerged this evening blinking into the sudden glare and sunlight of the Chamber and hope that hon. Members will vote for the motion, which is brought before the House at the request of all the members of the Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the honour of sitting on the Committee was not one that we actively sought, but we are doing our duty as it was imposed upon us by the House and intend, even if the motion is passed this evening, to continue to do so.
The Committee has now been sitting for a long time and my colleagues and I feel that we have now exhausted time and are beginning to encroach upon eternity. It is producing some significant problems for those on the Committee in carrying out their other parliamentary duties from time to time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether, having gone this far through the experience, the hon. Gentleman now feels that private Bills should be encouraged or discouraged as a process. Does he not now have much sympathy with the special Select Committee that looked at this, seeking a way to reform the whole process?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman implies that I did not have any sympathy with that proposition before I became Chairman of the Committee. I should disabuse him of that idea, because I feel that there is much to be said for many of the recommendations in the Joint Committee report and I hope that the Leader of the House will take on board that Committee's recommendations. I am sure that they are in line with the views of many hon. Members who have come here this evening to debate not merely


whether the quorum on the Committee should in this circumstance be reduced, but the wider points that have been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman.
It is a serious request that we are making to the House and it is not made lightly. It is not one to which, in other circumstances, I should be very sympathetic. I believe it to be of some importance, therefore, to establish the justification for what is being proposed.
I have said already that we have sat in public for 33 days. It is only this week that we have begun to hear evidence on behalf of the petitioners against the Bill. Therefore, the Bill is likely to continue in Committee for a very long time to come
I have also said that, notwithstanding the request that we are making this evening, it will be incumbent upon hon. Members to attend diligently to their duties as often as is possible and necessary. I give an assurance to the House that they will do so.

Mr. Tony Banks: I sympathise with the situation of the members of the hon. Gentleman's Committee. I have sat on and chaired, I think, five private Bill Committees and I understand his position, even though I shall be opposing what he proposes. He has just mentioned that the petitioners are about to start making their case. Does he think that they will be disadvantaged by this move, because the promoter, British Rail, has had the opportunity of a quorum of three, whereas now the petitioners will have a quorum of only two?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that it is not necessarily an advantage to those making speeches that they be heard; in some cases it may be the opposite. However, I take the point that he has raised and assure him that, in our opinion, the petitioners will not be disadvantaged by the proposal. If we believed that they would be, I should not be standing here now advocating that the motion be passed.
A full record of the proceedings is taken every day and the transcript is available the following morning. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been assiduous throughout the proceedings on the Bill in testing with some vigour the assertions of British Rail. I do not think that the representatives of British Rail would say that every day has been an agreeable experience, as they have been subjected to the penetrating glares and cross-examination of the members of the committee.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): If it is not a disadvantage to any party for the quorum to be reduced from three to two, and my hon. Friend advanced the case that a good transcript was available to other hon. Members, why not reduce the quorum to one?

Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate that my hon. Friend thinks that autocracy is the best system of government, and I am sure that many hon. Members have sympathy with that. However, it is a question of degree. From time to time, it is necessary to adjourn the Committee, merely for a few moments, for an hon. Member to make a telephone call, or to perform some other function that it would be too indecorous to mention. For that reason we tabled the motion, and we also recognise that hon. Members have other duties in the House and outside, and it is our opinion

that, on balance, this one exception to the general rule ought to be allowed, on the ground of the length of time that the Committee has been sitting.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I can sympathise with the dilemma of the Committee, because I have been a Chairman of a Select Committee, although it did not have to sit as long as the hon. Gentleman's Committee. Does he agree that the problem that the Committee faces and that the House is considering tonight—I believe the problem has applied to other Bills in the past—is that Bills of this description come to the House without being preceded by other procedures? This type of private Bill deals indirectly with matters of public concern that it was not initially meant to deal with. There is a deep-seated difficulty over the nature of the promoter's objectives rather than any shortcoming in the procedures of the House.

Mr. Hamilton: I believe that procedural alterations could be made to shorten the time for which Committees sit. I believe that, if there were a procedure such as a summons for directions in cases before the High Court, to examine which witnesses and the nature of the evidence to be called and other such relevant questions, that might shorten the length of time for which the Committee sits without disadvantage to the promoters or the petitioners on the Bill. There are other options that one could mention.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I know that he is a distinguished Chairman of a Committee, as is the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
This request is not without precedent, although precedents are not apposite to cover the case of the Committee on which I sit.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend permit me to make a little more progress with my speech? I hope that the debate will not last as long as the Committee has been sitting, and I want to allow other hon. Members to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient and perhaps intervene later.
Motions to reduce a quorum on Committees on private Bills have been put before. For example, in 1965 in the Committee examining the Covent Garden Market Bill, one of the hon. Members was taken seriously ill early in the proceedings and the quorum was reduced. In 1986, during the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) refused to serve and no other Opposition Member could be found to take her place, so the quorum was also reduced then.
There are not many precedents for what we are asking the House to do. I am fully sensible of the enormity of what is being proposed, and I do not think that it should become a general precedent. The rules and procedures on private Bills are not to be substantially changed, but I believe that when a Committee lasts for an exceptionally long time, such as the length of time that we have endured, it is right that hon. Members should be permitted to be absent for short periods, from time to time, without causing the Committee to adjourn.
The previous record for length of sitting of a private Bill Committee is held by the Associated British Ports (No. 2)


Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which sat for 26 days. The Leicester (Crematorium) Bill also lasted for 26 days in the 1982–83 Session.
The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill Committee, which sat for 25 days, met for 86 hours in Committee over five months. The King's Cross Railways Bill has already sat for more than 115 hours on 33 days, over eight months, and as I have said, it is possible that it will last for another 15 or 20 days. We shall be well into the lead by the time that we conclude our proceedings.
Looking to the future, that time is probably as nothing compared to what will be endured when, and if, British Rail comes forward in November, as it has said that it intends to do, with its high-speed link Bill to put the rail line through Kent to King's Cross. Therefore, I hope that I carry with me tonight supporters from Kent who sit on the Benches behind me.
I hope that I am making a case based on the length of time that the Committee has served. The average number of sitting days per Committee during the past 20 years is 4·8, so the vast majority of private Bills sit for only a few days, and the total number of hours when the Bill is considered is very small.

Mr Jeremy Corbyn: What is the average now?

Mr. Hamilton: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sedentary comment—we are certainly pushing up the average, but I do not think that that is the greatest of my achievements in my short period in the House.
A number of Select Committees on hybrid Bills have sat for lengthy periods, but hybrid Bill Committees are not strictly comparable with private Bill Committees, because they contain a greater number of hon. Members and a smaller quorum in relation to the overall size of the Committee. That is the point that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure had in mind when it turned its attention to quorums and made its recommendations.
The two most notable hybrid Bill Committees were the Channel Tunnel Bill—on which I also had the privilege of sitting—which sat for 39 days in 1985–86 and 1986–87 and the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, which sat for 22 days in 1987–88, when there were seven members and the quorum was three.
I have some experience of these matters, and it is on the basis of that that I make this request this evening. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) should have some sympathy with my request, as he sat on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. In paragraph 118 of its proceedings, that Committee says:
it is now unrealistic to expect members of an opposed bill committee in the Commons to abandon all their other duties in order to attend the whole of the committee's proceedings, it seems desirable slightly to relax the requirement for a quorum.
I am delighted to adopt the view of my hon. Friend the Member of Faversham, whom I am pleased to see here to support me.
I hasten to assure hon. Members that the purpose of moving the motion is not to enable hon. Members to take days off regular. I have had one morning and one afternoon off to perform other duties in the House and in my constituency during the 33 days that the Committee has sat; otherwise, I have sat in the Committee Room

almost without exception, with just a few minutes outside. Other hon. Members have had other reasons to be away from the Committee for short periods.
The motion is to facilitate two hon. Members being away from Committee, without having to disrupt proceedings and to adjourn and so cause counsel and witnesses to have a break in proceedings. That causes inconvenience to petitioners, who are disadvantaged when the timetable of the Bill is unexpectedly altered, rather than to promoters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has been chosen for special treatment by the Tory Whips to serve on the Committee. Before he proposed the motion, I wonder whether he had a good look around to see whether someone else was available to fill the bill and whether he could make a change and substitute someone else. That would require a new procedure. One or two Tories seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Off the top of my head, I am thinking about the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is prepared to do a couple of days for Barclays for £100,000 a year. Does the hon. Gentleman have that sort of money?

Mr. Hamilton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the four hon. Members on the Committee are painfully aware that we are dedicated public servants, unpaid for the extra responsibility on our shoulders, while in front of us sit a suave collection of silks, juniors, agents and others, who are deriving no doubt well-deserved fees for the work that they perform. I should hate the hon. Gentleman to think that there was the slightest tinge of envy in our minds when we look at them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is a saint.

Mr. Hamilton: I was not aware that canonisation was in the gift of the Chief Whip, but it may be my reward for all my hard work in Committee.
I speak for all hon. Members on the Committee when I say that it is not our intention to use the latitude that the motion would give us to be away from the Committee in contravention of our duties to the House. We take very seriously paragraph 119 of the Joint Committee report, which states:
The Committee wish to emphasise that despite the relaxation of these formal requirements, Members of Parliament should still regard themselves as obliged to attend committees on opposed bills assiduously and attentively.
It will be my intention to continue to sit on the Committee every day, in so far as it is possible for me to do so, and we shall attend assiduously to our duties.
Therefore, I commend the motion to the House. I hope that it will not be taken as a generalised exception, but will be treated as the exceptional case that it is. I hope for the support of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members.

Mr. George Galloway: I, too, had the privilege of sitting selflessly on the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill. Somebody up there in the Whips' Office likes me, too. I sat on the Committee considering the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, to which the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) referred. That Bill dealt with a bridge from one place to another place where I had never been and which I had never heard of. I never crossed the bridge, and probably


never shall, but it was a bridge too far for me. I sat on the Committee for all those 22 days under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

Mr. Skinner: He was not all that distinguished then.

Mr. Galloway: He was a very distinguished Chairman. He did not leave his place very often, either. I see that he has his reward in heaven, his canonisation by the Chief Whip and now sits on the Treasury Bench, so perhaps the hon. Member for Tatton has something to look forward to after all.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten the House about a rumour that is going around that the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill may have to return to the House because of the height of the bridge. In those circumstances, presumably my hon. Friend would be more than happy to serve once again on that Committee.

Mr. Galloway: If it is proper to say so, I had always thought the measure a dubious one. After those 22 days, the Committee made a fairly strong recommendation which I understand the House later overturned. It may be that our wisdom has been vindicated and the measure will return.
Having served my 22 days on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, clearly I transgressed again, because I was given the chalice of a place under the equally distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Tatton—the Spectator's parliamentary wit of the year. Before the Committee started, I thought that epithet only half right. As each day progressed—and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there have been many days—my admiration for him has grown and his wit and wisdom is being amply demonstrated in the Chair of that Committee.
I hope that no one will imply that one of the reasons for the tremendously slow progress of the measure is somehow any shortcomings in the chairmanship of the Committee, for the hon. Member for Tatton has acted assiduously, wisely and with a good deal of humor, often finding pearls of humour where none could have imagined it possible in the tedium.
No fault can be laid at the door of the Chair of the Committee, or the Members of the Committee or the highly remunerated silks and others, some of whom are in the Gallery—I realise that I was not supposed to mention them. I have been so long in that Committee that I am losing touch with parliamentary procedure. Some of them are doing well and they have all had their moments. Like Wagner's operas, they have all had their moments and their terrible half hours. Some of them have been Rocky Marciano, others have been Don Cockell; sometimes the roles have been reversed. It has been a long time.
I wanted to give one example to my hon. Friends, most of whom I suspect are ranged against the motion, although I am sure for other reasons than wanting to see me locked up in the Grand Committee Room for any longer than necessary. Last Tuesday, as the House will know, was the day of action called by the Trades Union Congress in connection with the ambulance dispute. I was privileged to be invited by the ambulance workers' trade unions and the

Scottish Trades Union Congress to address the rally at George square in Glasgow. It was a very significant occasion.
I could not turn down the invitation, and the Chairman of the Committee, although no doubt his views are different from mine, was willing to release me for that purpose. However, that reduced the available membership of the Committee to three.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) the other Labour Member on the Committee wanted to attend a meeting in the House on the ambulance dispute, and again the Chairman was willing to release him. That meant the collapse of the Committee. The proceedings stopped, causing inconvenience particularly to the petitioners. The promoters have broad backs and their counsel and other legal representatives were not terribly distraught about the break, but those petitioners who were appearing for themselves or had fine legal representation which I understand was working virtually for nothing, were particularly disadvantaged.
It is clearly ridiculous, when a Bill has been considered for 150 hours—and, despite what the Chairman of the Committee said, I suspect that it will be 150 hours more yet—to expect a quorum of three out of four Members of Parliament to devote so much time to the Committee or to feel terribly guilty about answering a telephone call, a call of nature or anything else. When I was at the rally in Glasgow, I was aware of the responsibility with which I had left my three colleagues trapped in the Committee.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman explained that there is always a clash of priorities when one is serving on a private Bill Committee, because circumstances such as the ambulance dispute arise. Does he agree that such circumstances would arise whether it was a short or long Bill? If it were a short Bill and the same pressure had arisen, he would have felt similarly obliged to go elsewhere and similarly guilty about leaving his colleagues behind.

Mr. Galloway: By definition, the longer a Bill goes on, the more such clashes of responsibility are likely to occur and to prove problematic. I have much sympathy with my hon. Friends who criticise the private Bill procedure, but that issue is different from the motion that we are discussing.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I must be in my constituency on Friday and often have constituency business on Monday. That effectively means that almost all my time in the House is spent in Committee. I cannot attend Prime Minister's Question Time—I have forgotten what the Prime Minister looks like—or questions on foreign and commonwealth affairs, and this week I could not attend Scottish questions. That is becoming intolerable.
I accepted the mantle thrust on me by the Whips of serving on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill and now on the King's Cross Railways Bill. I trust that they are polishing another Bill for me to serve on when this one is finished. The Opposition's deputy Chief Whip is present, and I am sure that he can hear what I am saying.
I hope that the House will pass the motion because it will make life much easier for the four members of the Committee. It will not disadvantage the petitioners—I understand people being anxious about the dangers of disadvantaging them—and no one who has read the transcripts of the Committee's proceedings, which I


commend to hon. Members, could claim that the Committee has been a pushover for British Rail. On the contrary, BR has been mauled repeatedly during our proceedings.
I hope that, in all the circumstances, the House will pass the motion.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The motion is strictly procedural, but sometimes it is helpful for the House to hear the Government's attitude to such matters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and the other two hon. Members serving on the Committee on their excellent service. They have displayed selfless public service and commitment to duty.
On Second Reading last year, I said that the Government gave consent for British Rail to seek the powers in the Bill. In principle, the Government believe that the Bill's proposals are sensible and that they are a further step in British Rail's plans to create a modern railway to carry traffic to and through London.
Consistent with that approach, the Government support the motion, which is supported by all the members of the Committee and would enable it to complete consideration of the Bill in a sensible way. I am therefore happy to record the Government's attitude to the motion.

Mr. Tony Banks: As I said earlier in an intervention, I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and the other two hon. Members serving on the Committee.
I chaired four or five private Bill Committees. Sometimes a streak of malevolence goes through the heart of even the kindest Whip when he is deciding which hon. Member should be given a task that is onerous, unrewarded and unobserved. One of the worst things that can happen to any hon. Member is to be totally unobserved for such a long period. Hon. Members who sit not only on private Bill Committees but on public Bill Committees and Select Committees are the workhorses of this place, and they deserve recognition for that.
The Committee stage of a public Bill used to be rather like dropping into a legislative black hole. There was plenty of action, but they sat only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We now have the advantage of Committees being televised. I am a member of the Committee considering the Broadcasting Bill. It is important for all politicians to know that they have a platform. Therefore, the Committee stage of public Bills has become much more relevant and interesting than it was in the past.
The Committee stage of a private Bill is different; it is like being fossilised in amber. It may appear very grand—the members serving on the King's Cross Railway Bill look very grand and decorous, I am sure—but, rather as with insects fossilised in amber, there is little movement.
I must underline the fact that I am exceedingly sympathetic to the motion, but for several reasons I shall vote against it.
The hon. Member for Tatton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead mentioned Queen's counsel, who seem to be paid by the word. They seem to assume that

members of the Committee are incapable of reading. After one has sat in such a Committee for a few hours, one is almost incapable of doing anything, but one can usually summon up the ability to read a sentence. However, they continue to read interminably. I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton has reminded learned counsel that members of the Committee are capable of reading the papers that are put before them and that there is no need to go through them word by word, at great expense to the promoters and petitioners.
Knowing the circumstances that prevail on private Bill Committees, I believe that it is little wonder that hon. Members are so reluctant to serve on them. I volunteered to do so because I thought that I would learn something. I think that I learned a few things. I certainly learned about the defects of the private Bill procedure, with which I shall deal later. A number of hon. Members, confronted with the possibility of serving on a private Bill Committee, have fleetingly considered taking the Chiltern Hundreds. One or two would have preferred to disembowel themselves rather than serve on a private Bill Committee.
When we were considering how to get hon. Members to serve on private Bill Committees, the Select Committee on Procedure suggested—this was a serious suggestion—the possibility of knighthoods being given. That would not have enticed Labour Members, but Conservative Members might have been enticed by gongs being handed round.
The difference between the Committee stage of a private Bill and that of a public Bill is that, as the hon. Member for Tatton said, the private Bill Committee meets perhaps not for more hours but for more days and at times which are crucial in the House, such as Question Time. The Committee meets on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
The other distinction is that on a public Bill Committee, it is possible for hon. Members to disappear, to come down here and to make speeches. I do not know whether the Broadcasting Bill Committee is still sitting. I should be there, but no one will drag me down here and complain on the Floor of the House that I was not serving on the Committee. Yet that is what can happen to an hon. Member who does not turn up at a private Bill Committee. It is not permissive but mandatory for an hon. Member to serve on that Committee. If an hon. Member refuses to serve on such a Committee or does not turn up, it is incumbent on the Chairman of the private Bill Committee to report the absence to the House. That is the difference, which we must examine.
I suggest to the Minister and to hon. Members who have gone through this rather daunting experience for so many hours that hon. Members of all parties should insist that the report from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which was presented to the House in July 1988, should be debated properly on the Floor of the House. We should have the opportunity to vote on its various recommendations.
It is a substantial report, and I do not intend to take hon. Members all the way through it. However, it is worth reminding the House of a few of the recommendations so that hon. Members know what the report contains.

Mr. Spearing: Before my hon. Friend discusses these important factors, will he permit me to attempt a reconciliation between himself and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)? Does he agree that one of the


recommendations which was not in the report, although it was good, was the installation of a filter—perhaps a joint Committee of both Houses—to determine whether a private Bill was suitable for consideration by either House? Would that proposal deal with many of these matters?

Mr. Banks: I must point out to my hon. Friend that that is the first recommendation of the Committee. The report says:
Promoters of a private bill should be required to prove before the committee on the bill that private legislation is necessary to secure the primary purpose of the bill.
The report continues:
Where the primary purpose may be authorised through other means, the committee on the bill should insist that those means be pursued first, and that the approval of Parliament be limited only to the specific components which require its authority.
That would undoubtedly foreshorten many of the proceedings that are now being endured by members of the Committee.
The other principal recommendation that I want to draw to the attention of the House is recommendation 5, which says:
In cases where planning considerations are dominant"—
which is clearly the case in the King's Cross Railways Bill—
all works proposals for which private bill approval is presently required should instead be authorised through non-parliamentary procedures involving the holding, where necessary, of a public local inquiry into objections.
There are many objections to the King's Cross Railways Bill on local planning and national strategic planning grounds.
As I have said to the Minister and many other hon. Members, the proposal should never have had to go through the private Bill procedure. It should have been considered in other ways, and there should have been a full public inquiry.

Mr. Moate: I agree on that point, although that is not why I intervened. To correct what the hon. Gentleman said, does he recall that we had an extensive and full debate on the recommendations? We are waiting now not for a debate but for Government moves to implement the recommendations.

Mr. Banks: Yes, but the debate that I seek would be an executive debate so that we could take a decision at the end. We had a take-note debate. I remember the present Secretary of State for Energy when he was Leader of the House putting off the debate for ages, although many hon. Members were asking for one. The then Leader of the House kept saying that the Government were digesting the report. When we came to the debate, it was merely a take-note debate.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) shared this belief, but many Opposition Members thought that the then Leader of the House would make recommendations. However, when they were explained to the Prime Minister, he backed off quickly because the Prime Minister had said previously in Question Time that she thought that the private Bill procedures were perfectly adequate for such matters. I realise that the Prime Minister's word is law all the way through, but it is about time that hon. Members began to

insist that cases such as the one that we are hearing tonight should never be repeated. That issue could unite hon. Members of all parties in demanding that action be taken.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a couple of other major recommendations. There is a danger of the report being forgotten. It took a long time for the Table Office to find a copy, and we shall be told next that the report has gone out of print so we cannot discuss it. We shall then be told that all the drafts have been lost as well. I am suspicious about that, and I must insist that we have a proper debate in which we can take decisions. Recommendation 13 says:
Each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into private bill procedures by making new Standing Orders.
My God, we need an environmental impact assessment on the proposals for King's Cross. I am sure that, if hon. Members were to seek that, British Rail's proposals would be cursorily and summarily thrown out.
The report also recommends:
Opposed bill committees should comprise five Members and the quorum should be three.
If even the four or five recommendations that I have read out had been incorporated, the hon. Member for Tatton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead would not have been in their present position.
There is a difference between this proposal and the two precedents that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Tatton: the Covent Garden Bill of 1965 and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill of 1986. In the case of the Covent Garden Bill, one hon. Member had a lengthy illness and another suddenly felt a bit dicky, which was not surprising given the problems associated with the private Bill procedure.
In the case of the Felixstowe Docks and Railway Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) refused to serve. There were effective reasons for her not serving. It is not easy merely to appoint another Member because proceedings are already under way. An hon. Member cannot be brought in at a later stage, because that would be grossly unfair to the promoters and to the petitioners. There were specific reasons in 1965 and 1986 why a proposal to reduce the quorum should have been received favourably—as it was. The position here is different.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is true that the reasons for the quorum were different for those two Bills, but the hon. Gentleman's argument seems odd. The quorum was reduced in the 1986 Committee because the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd), with whom I have the greatest sympathy, refused to undertake the duty imposed on her by the House. In this case, hon. Members are performing those duties, yet they are not to have the advantage of such a move.

Mr. Banks: There is another difference. The matter was brought to a head because my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley refused to serve. We are obliged to her for refusing because, as a result, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure was set up. If, after my hon. Friend rendered us that service, we had had a chance to decide on the matter, the hon. Member for Tatton would not have been in his present position.
All hon. Members are taking an honourable approach. People outside and our constituents must understand. Now that the House is televised, I should not be surprised


if each of the hon. Members who is serving on the Committee was accosted by their constituents saying, "I've been watching the television and I have never seen you at Prime Minister's Question Time or in Scottish Question Time. Where were you? What have you been doing?" Since the private Bill Committees are not televised, hon. Members should have the opportunity to ensure that everyone inside and, more importantly, outside the House knows what goes on. That is why, if for no other reason, this debate is useful.
I object to the reduction of the quorum. The promoter, British Rail, is the real problem maker and has got us into this mess. British Rail's arrogance and high-handed attitude have not been at all helpful. It is about time that we visited on the heads of those who make the decisions at British Rail a just penalty for the way in which they are prepared to use this procedure.

Mr. Skinner: Put them on the Committee.

Mr. Banks: Unfortunately, they would make all the wrong decisions. British Rail and other promoters seem able to use this place in a way which I consider to be wholly unacceptable.
British Rail had the advantage of a quorum of three, with four hon. Members usually in attendance. The petitioners are beginning to present their case. Camden and Islington borough councils are presenting their case, part of which will be to show why the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel should be located in my constituency and the London borough of Newham, rather than at King's Cross. Petitioners will make that case, but the same quorum of hon. Members will not be present to hear them.
I want to know from the hon. Member for Tatton whether the reduction in the quorum will mean that, on average, there will still be four hon. Members on the Committee. I am worried about why he wishes to reduce the quorum now. It may be because of pressures in the past or intimations that there will be pressures in the future. In other words, an hon. Member may wish to make the odd visit abroad or there may be a reselection crisis in the air. If there will not be the same regular attendance to hear petitioners as there was to hear the promoters, the petitioners will be at a disadvantage.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: There is no sinister motive underlying the request of the Members of the Committee. It would be an unjustifiable slur on his hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) if the hon. Gentleman were to suggest that we intend to do something which would disadvantage the petitioners. It has been our duty all along to bend over backwards to assist the petitioners, particularly those who are not represented by counsel or specialist parliamentary agents. We have done our best to accommodate them in all their difficulties, given the disparity of resources between private individuals and enormous corporations such as British Rail.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the only reason why we come now with this request is that we have sat for 33 days, which is seven days more than the previous record. I did not feel that it was open to us to make this request until the exceptional nature of the Committee became evident for all to see.

Mr. Galloway: Two of the members of the Committee have been reselected.

Mr. Banks: I am relieved to hear that at least two of them have been reselected. I did not mean to imply that there was any intentional disservice to the petitioners. I merely wish to know that the petitioners' case is heard to the maximum effect and by the full membership of the Committee. Ultimately, all four members will vote, whether or not they all heard the cases put by the various petitioners.
We are in this mess because Private Bill procedures have been tested to destruction. Clearly they are completely inappropriate for a measure as important as the King's Cross Railways Bill and the location of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel and associated infrastructure, which is the largest capital investment in transportation this century in this country—

Mr. Cormack: The largest ever.

Mr. Banks: That is even longer than this century. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who is so precise on these matters.
The private Bill procedure is not the way to deal with a Bill such as this. The Government have walked away from a major strategic decision. I have been to see the Minister and he has been courtesy itself, but he has never accepted that the decision is so important that it should be taken by the Government and not left to four members of a Committee who have had the decision inflicted upon them. They will have to listen to hours and hours of petitions. This is a strategic decision, and the responsibility should be taken by the Government.
The Government are to blame as well as British Rail, but they are doubly to blame because they have allowed private Bill procedures to be used by British Rail on such a significant development and because they have refused to bring the report on private Bill procedure to the House so that we can vote on it.
I could make the case that we should have the terminal at Stratford where there is no opposition to it, unlike at King's Cross. We are waiting to greet the construction.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mr. Banks: I know that that goes somewhat beyond the terms of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am coming to my peroration, my last sentence.
The hon. Member for Tatton knows our motives for opposing the motion. This debate and the pressures that have been put on the Committee have reminded us yet again that the private Bill procedure is inappropriate and overstretched. If we obtain a debate on it, the Committee members will have served us well, as they have done in the Committee. I repeat that I shall oppose the recommendation tonight.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I begin by applauding the Committee for both its assiduity and its integrity. Those of us who are anxious about British Rail's proposals, both in this Bill and in the others that it proposes to bring forward, are extremely grateful to the Committee for the way in which it has forced British Rail to address some of the questions that, in its usual slovenly


way, it would have preferred to slide past the Committee in the miasma that is characteristic of its normal proceedings. I pay a grateful tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and his colleagues on the Committee.
I served on a Committee on a private Bill under the scrupulous and assiduous chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He has said that he understands what is involved, and from my personal experience I know that that is true. He said that hon. Members, or at least most of them, can read, so it could be argued that all that is needed is a transcript. Why should we bother to have a Committee of Members of Parliament when it would be cheaper for professionals to argue out the matter and to make a decision based on the transcript of those discussions?
That argument under-estimates the importance of cross-examination by members of the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, one could ask: if the quorum is to be reduced by one, why not reduce it again? If it was reduced again by a third, one would obtain a recurring decimal—except, in this case, it would not be a recurring decimal, but a spasmodic decimal. The effect of reducing the quorum would be that people would not come so often.
I am surprised that the members of the Committee want relief. The proceedings have almost all the ingredients that one could possibly wish for in the life of a Member of Parliament. First, they are complex. We have heard how many days the board of British Rail took to present its evidence. The numbers of days was greatly increased by the need for British Rail to re-present and in some cases re-re-present evidence. The matter is immensely complex and we probably need to have a balance of hon. Members to scrutinise it thoroughly.
The Bill deals with matters of major importance. Often in this place we find ourselves working hard on matters which, sub specie aeternitatis, are of no importance whatever. British Rail is seeking to override carefully constituted protection for the heritage and the environment. Scheduled buildings are not only of major importance in the context of King's Cross but of fundamental importance to the protection of the British environment from John o' Groats to Land's End. If a private undertaking can use the private Bill procedure to demolish the protection of scheduled buildings, there is no safety for any of our landmarks. We may find that the Dean and his bus affiliation in Salisbury would use the private Bill procedure to demolish the cathedral to allow more parking.
The Bill has also provided all sorts of surprises, and it is always rather nice in an otherwise drab routine to have surprises. I am sure that every member of the Committee must have had a frisson of surprise when British Rail told the Committee that, in its brand new 21st-century station, the platforms would not be long enough to accommodate its brand new 21st-century trains and, so that the passengers are not prevented from getting off the trains, the driver will have to get off in the tunnel and walk back down the track.
It has all been immensely entertaining. What could be more fun than to discern, for example, that British Rail wants a new station when it cannot give the Committee

any firm assurance that it will have a line to get to the station? These are matters of burlesque amusement from which, when hon. Members reflect upon them, I am sure that they will not wish to be released.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has made it abundantly clear that this is an outdated way of handling such major matters. Indeed, the debate is really about the clear and unmistakable evidence that major private Bills such as this can no longer be run in this way and that the promoters can no longer expect Members of Parliament to participate.
Before we get the essential changes that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has previsaged, perhaps we should suggest one or two improvements. I wonder whether this motion would be before us if the timing of the Committee's sittings were to be changed. Why is the timing of the Committee primarily for the convenience of the legal profession? Why does the Committee not sit at times that would suit Members of Parliament, so that hon. Members could come to Question Time and take part in some of the more lively parts of the parliamentary day?

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend some suggestions. It is, of course, open to the Committee to set its own normal sitting hours. One of the problems that we have faced during our proceedings when we have wished to sit later in the afternoon is a shortage of shorthand writers. If there is nobody to transcribe what is said, the Committee is unable to sit. That is something else to which the House should turn its attention.

Mr. Rowe: I am both grateful for and appalled by that intervention. That seems a further example of the extraordinarily incompetent way in which we run our own affairs if we cannot so structure our organisation that we can arrange the timetable to make it possible to run the proceedings of our House as they should be run.
It would considerably benefit peititioners if they could meet the Committee at a time that is not during their normal working hours. I suspect that many petitioners have to take time off work and often even have to accept loss of earnings simply to come here to give evidence. What is more, because it is almost impossible for the Committee to predict exactly how long any sitting will last, no doubt the petitioners come and—like out-patients at some of our hospitals—go away disappointed, not having seen the doctor. If we were to suggest altering the procedures of the House so that such a Committee could sit at times that suit Members of Parliament, perhaps we might have less difficulty with the Committee.
The procedure that we are discussing was designed in the 19th century to assist relatively weak private railway companies to override the spoiling tactics and the enormous power of the large landowners. It is no longer an appropriate vehicle for a huge state monopoly that is seeking to override the weakness of individual housholders or, in the case of this British Rail Bill, to override the law of the land. It is wholly inappropriate.
I am not concerned only about the Bill; I am concerned about the future. There is alleged to be coming—I do not really believe it because we have heard it all before—or there is the faint possibility that at some stage British Rail will bring before the House a Bill to connect the Channel tunnel to either London, Swanley, Ashford or somewhere. There is a faint chance that British Rail might devise some


way of getting its trains from the Channel tunnel portal to—I can see that I am in trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Rowe: If that were to happen, we would be faced with a Bill of such length and such complexity, affecting so many thousands of people and covering tens of miles from Dover to King's Cross or—more realistically—to Stratford, that I believe that it would prove impossible to find hon. Members prepared to serve on such a Committee. As a high proportion of that Bill's content would relate to planning matters, the time is long overdue for the House to turn the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure into regulations before we get—if we ever get—the Channel tunnel link Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I speak because of the procedural matters involved, and also as an Islington Member of Parliament. My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) cannot be here tonight, but they are interested in the fate of King's Cross and, therefore, in the fate of this proposal.
Although I understand that the motion deals with the quorum of the private Bill Committee, other issues emanate from that, which are of great importance to the House. Other hon. Members have touched on the procedure of the private Bill Committee and on the public's right to know what is going on. I have been following this from a distance. Now that the Whips have left the Chamber, I can reveal to the House that I have never served on a private Bill Committee— [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is informing me that he is an agency— [Interruption.] No, I beg his pardon, he is now a full Whip. Nevertheless, although I have never served on such a Committee, I have observed them from afar.
I have been concerned that, so far, the Committee has sat for 33 days, and I have every sympathy for the hon. Members concerned. If I had to serve on a private Bill Committee that was dealing with a part of the country that was far away from London and of no direct concern to my constituents, and had to spend that amount of time on matters of no direct relevance to my area, I can understand that people in my constituency would say, "What on earth are you doing obsessing yourself with the Inverness Harbour Bill?"—or whatever.
I can understand both that and the frustrations of the hon. Members concerned. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with them and the House should have some sympathy with their problems, that is not to say that I shall vote for the motion, so they will have to suffer for a bit longer. Nevertheless, I hope that the House has listened carefully to what has been said and will consider the procedures involved.
In the past, I served as a local councillor. Indeed, I was the chair of a planning committee on a borough council. No borough councillor would get involved in such detail on a planning application or a planning procedure, because that is not the way in which local government works, so why should we expect Members of Parliament to go into the most enormous detail on planning matters?
This abuse of the private Bill procedure is growing. The procedure was introduced as a form of planning control for major harbour and railway developments. It was the only form of planning control that existed at that time. There was no local government framework capable of dealing with planning, and Parliament deemed this an appropriate form of control.
There would be no point in going into how the railways were built and into the procedures that had to be followed. However, one has to ask whether, in this age, it is appropriate that an enormously important decision in respect of King's Cross, with ramifications far beyond King's Cross—indeed far beyond the railway network of this country: international ramifications—should be thrust upon four Members of this House, who are forced to give up virtually all other parliamentary and political activity to pursue the matter. The House must address itself to that problem, and I hope that it will. I hope that it will recognise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing procedures.
I have been involved in road inquiries in the past, and I expect that, if the Department of Transport's plans for my borough go forward, I shall be involved in such inquiries again. There is nothing particularly democratic about the public inquiry system, either. However, the advantage is that the applicant has to put all his cards on the table in advance.
One contrasts that with the case of the King's Cross Railways Bill, in which British Rail seems to make up the evidence as it goes along. Every day, it seems to come up with a new set of papers and a new set of plans, even if it cannot measure the length of a train and compare that with the length of a tunnel.
In the case of a public inquiry on a road or a major building, for example, the inspector reports to the Secretary of State, who makes the decision. The Secretary of State is not accountable for the decision, except to the extent that, theoretically, as Secretary of State he could be the subject of a motion of censure. There is something fundamentally wrong with decision-making as a whole.
There are also, of course, the feelings in the community. I represent—Islington, North, which is slightly beyond King's Cross. Actually, the main line from King's Cross runs through it. The Department of Transport, through its consultants, has just put forward a proposal for the creation of a major road through Islington, down to King's Cross, and a road beyond that.
I realise that that matter goes slightly beyond the scope of our debate, but I make the point to underline the concern of the community about the passage of the King's Cross Railways Bill. Many people in Islington are genuinely very worried. They are worried about the size of the proposed development north of King's Cross, and they are worried about the procedures being adopted in respect of the Bill itself.
The Bill has been under consideration for, I think, 33 days—my hon. Friends may correct me if I am wrong—most of which time has been taken up by British Rail. As I said, British Rail has altered its course many times throughout the procedure, and it has not yet come up with a firm proposal for a line leading into King's Cross. It is discussing the provision of a station served by some very outdated tracks.
Indeed, at the moment trains could not get into the new King's Cross international terminal. There is no tunnel that could take them. So a station is being discussed


virtually in isolation from a rail system that coud cope with the trains. That was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). For 33 days, British Rail has had very expensive representation—silks and all the rest—and goodness knows what the cost is. At the end of the day, we shall all have to pay the bill.
The procedure involves Members of Parliament being taken away from the political activities for daytime sittings of the Committee. The local community, most of whom have other things to worry about, are unable to be represented, other than through local authorities or by community associations. Some people are making enormous sacrifices to represent them.
The Camden and Islington local authorities are now starting to present their views and their evidence. That evidence is very much out in the open, unlike the case presented by British Rail. Now we are told that it is an appropriate time to reduce the Committee quorum. I understand why the motion has been moved, but what message is to be given to the people of the borough that I represent? How are they to be told that the quorum is being changed, now that the applicants have completed their submission?
I know that it is not the intention of the hon. Members concerned, but one cannot escape the fact that the impression being given to the people in the community is that the views of the two local authorities, both of which are elected—the board of British Rail is not elected—of the local community association, of the King's Cross Railway Lands Group, and of all the other groups concerned are such that they can be dealt with by a smaller Committee. The message is inescapable: that they are less important than the British Rail evidence. I hope that the House will recognise that, if the quorum motion is passed, it will be very difficult to persuade people in the boroughs of Camden and Islington that their views and the views of others—many people are affected—are being taken seriously.
It is not appropriate to go halfway through a Bill procedure and then change the quorum. If, when the Committee started, the quorum was three out of four, it should stay at that figure. In the light of all this, the Select Committee on Procedure may well bring forward a procedural proposal. That would be the appropriate time to make such a change. It would be appropriate to consider also the representation of the public at Committee meetings, the sitting times and other procedures. It is not appropriate to chop and change in the middle, because that is seen as unfair to the less well-financed people who are trying to put forward their views.
In future, we shall have to look much more seriously at the major questions arising from these matters. It seems to me that it is fundamentally wrong that a major planning decision such as this should be taken by a Committee of four hon. Members. The local authorities have a sort of walk-on part. They can collect evidence and put it forward. Local communities can collect evidence and put it forward. But a Committee of the House will decide one way or the other. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, this procedure rides roughshod over many other things. The implications of the decision are enormous.
As a separate matter, there is the enormous office development proposal north of King's Cross. In reality, of course, it is linked to the fate of the King's Cross station development itself; one cannot separate the two. Nor can one escape the effects on south London constituencies and on Kent as a whole. If this major station complex is not approved, the railway line route south of London will have to be different; if it is approved, the general direction of the railway line will be more or less set. One way or the other, the effect will be considerable.
I realise that the terms of the motion are quite narrow. However, as in the case of most things that are narrow, the deeper one goes, the wider one wishes they were.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not in my case. The more I go into this, the more I realise that the hon. Member is straying. It has been a very good-humoured debate, but I wish that he would come back to the motion that was moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Corbyn: I can only beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not attempting to deviate one iota; I was merely trying to explain the depth of feeling in Islington. People in every pub on the Caledonian road talk of little else than the King's Cross Railways Bill Committee. Indeed, the verbatim reports are passed from house to house. They are read as widely as the Islington Gazette.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: And in Dulwich.

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, in Dulwich as well. One report that I have here is very boring, but some are very interesting and are widely read.
I hope that, when the House makes its decision tonight, it will vote the motion down for the reason that I have given: that it is unsustainable, midway through a Committee, despite all the frustrations, which I understand, to change the rules. One cannot move the goal posts halfway through the game. The message that the House will give the people of Camden, Islington, the south London boroughs and Kent, which will all be affected, is that somehow there is one rule for British Rail and a different rule for everybody else. That is not good enough. It is not acceptable, and it will not be understood by people outside the House.
Another message from the debate is that there must be a serious examination of the private Bill procedure. It was never intended that planning decisions of international importance, in this case the biggest construction project that the country has ever seen, should be decided by four hon. Members, all of whom have other pressures on their time. I do not say that they have better things to do, but they have other things to do as Members of Parliament. Their experience on the Committee must have given them food for thought. I am always reminded that people who have served on juries for a long time during a major trial are given absolution by the judge at the end; he says that they will never have to do jury service again. I hope that the four hon. Members on the Committee will be given absolution from serving on other private Bill committees. I hope that the Whips will read that in Hansard.
The issues are complex. A point of principle is involved. I hope that the House will reject the proposal before it and show that it intends to keep faith with the original procedure. That would give confidence to the people, community groups and local authorities now preparing to


appear before the Committee that they will be subject to exactly the same rules as British Rail, rather than inferior terms of representation

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and his colleagues for their service on the Committee. The whole House owes them a debt for their assiduous attendance and the conscientious way in which they have pursued their duties. In sympathising with their predicament, I fear that I cannot support the motion. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but the motion raises a constitutional point, a broad general point of policy and a particular point in this case before us.
On the general policy point, it would be wrong, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, to change the rules of the game during play, or to move the goal posts while the players are on the field. It would suggest that the party that had had the opportunity of presenting its case before a full Committee of four, or a quorum of three, was in a stronger, better and more prestigious position than those who present their case later to a lesser quorum. That would be wrong in law and in equity.
It is an important principle that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. Although I have no doubt that the two hon. Members who would constitute the new quorum would discharge their duties with absolute integrity and objectivity, nevertheless it would appear that the petitioners were being short-changed. It is wrong to try to tamper with, or to make minor repairs to, the mechanism while the vehicle is still in motion. For that reason, if for no other, the motion should be rejected.
The motion illustrates the problems of piecemeal change. The House has had before it for some years a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. We have had an opportunity to take note, to digest and to debate it. I regret that that opportunity was missed by the powers that be in suggesting the changes that could be made to accommodate the real shortcomings in the procedure. The shortcomings are before us this evening, but the motion also highlights the misuse and abuse of private Bill procedure by sponsors such as British Rail, which is promoting the Bill under discussion.
It is absurd that a Bill can be brought forward to develop a terminal in central London without any mention being made of the route or path to that destination. The Bill is so constricted and constrained that, should someone dare mention the route to the destination, he might well be called to order and would certainly not have the opportunity to appear before the Committee. To be able to make such a great development by the salami process of slicing off first King's Cross and then pieces through south-east London and Kent to the Channel tunnel terminal is wrong. If nothing more, the procedure and progress on the Bill show the inadequacy and shortcomings, and demonstrate that change is necessary.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, before other Bills on rail development are promoted by British Rail, it should be forced to produce a detailed plan of the entire route programme and destinations for trains from the Channel tunnel, so that we may have an idea of

the effect on Kent constituencies, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my constituency and many others between London and the north of England?

Mr. Bowden: I welcome that intervention. It is a rare and happy occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I can agree so wholeheartedly.
It is tragic that 33 days have been spent by the Committee listening to argument—who knows, the Committee may spend another 33 days listening to further argument—and at the end of it the proposal of British Rail for the route may be turned down by the House, or an alternative proposal may run parallel to it. At the end, all the work of the Committee might be rendered redundant and obsolete because the proposal for the development of King's Cross did not fit in with the chosen route.
That shows the utter waste of public and private money in following a procedure which does nothing to help the country at large but does everything to facilitate British Rail in trying to develop, in an inefficient and secretive way, a Channel tunnel rail link to connect the whole of the United Kingdom with continental Europe.

Mr. Corbyn: I promise that this will be the last intervention. Of course, there is a fear that the Bill will be entirely abortive. That is possible. I understand that we are debating only the quorum of the Committee. In that respect, the quorum would then be dealing with a Bill that was about to be aborted. In the meantime, many people would have lost much money on property deals in the area.

Mr. Bowden: I am concerned about the waste of public money. I do not have quite the same concern about the speculation of private money. At the same time, I am concerned about the blight on so many properties, families and communities. The stress and anxiety that the uncertainty has caused are to be deprecated. That demonstrates more than anything else the need to change the private Bill procedure which is being so misused and abused.
I recognise the difficulties that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on the Committee are experiencing in neglecting by necessity the needs of their constituents and their own parliamentary duties in the House, and I have no wish personally to prolong their agony. However, it is essential that, if we are pursuing the proposal to develop King's Cross, it should be done on an equal footing for all parties. On that basis, I cannot support the motion.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am opposed to the private Bill procedure, for many of the reasons mentioned by hon. Members from both sides of the House in relation to its general operation. Traditionally, Parliament dealt with private Bills, and public Bills only later came in on a more general and wider basis. We should now have moved on from private Bills, because society has changed so much.
A provision that was right for small traders, the establishment of charters and other provisions seems entirely inappropriate in the modern age. Something that was used by the forces of the petty bourgeois and is now used by the big bourgeois and large corporations, will inevitably be abused. The procedures that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in terms of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure should be seriously considered


and responded to. Measures for the provision of transport such as the one before us should be matters for the public Bill procedure.

Mr.William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that matters that fall within private Bill procedure should be dealt with by statutory instrument? If so, will he acknowledge that that would deprive legitimate objecters of the opportunity to put forward issues in Parliament, before a parliamentary Committee, that are of relevance to them in their ordinary daily lives?

Mr. Barnes: An interesting discussion has been taking place. Earlier, hon. Members outlined some of the items contained in the Joint Committee's report that try to handle some of these problems. Although I generally find a great deal in the private Bill procedure obnoxious, I do not deny that there might be specific and limited provisions for which the procedure might be appropriate, if some of the checks and balances suggested in the Committee's report were brought forward.

Mr. Cash: In other words, the hon. Gentleman agrees that the private Bill procedure, with modifications, has his support.

Mr. Barnes: Basically, the major items that have been brought forward as private Bills are an abuse of the House, although they might be in line with the tradition of private Bills that came before 1800. They might have some scope for use if they are carefully checked and controlled. However, our major concern is the abuse of such procedures by strong outside organisations when alternative avenues are available such as the public Bill and planning agreements.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a railway network is planned which is to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and open up every region of that kingdom to continental Europe, it goes above the normal scope and confines of private Bill procedure and should be dealt with in something wider?

Mr. Barnes: I agree with that. Essentially, the private Bill procedure is increasingly used for matters that it was not developed to handle. The case in which the planning agreements should have been used was briefly mentioned; it involved the two Humber port Bills. The investigation, questioning and public inquiries that they involved should have taken place in the Humber area, not the House.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) that we are not in the business of attempting a minor, piecemeal adjustment to an unfair system. We should be worried about the suggestion to reduce the quorum, because that would allow us to bumble on with the measure, rather than face up to the transformation that is required.
Other proposals could be put in front of us to deal with a crisis that might occur in the Committee, and they would not produce the same piecemeal adjustment that leads to this sort of system going on and on, as it has. For example, if Committee Members come under too much pressure and experience mental fatigue because of the time involved—I agree that they bear a terrible burden—the House could

swop the membership of the Committee. I know that that is not entirely desirable and problems will arise from it. However, it happens elsewhere.
I have been on a Select Committee that has been preparing a report that is shortly to be published. I came to the Committee relatively near the end of procedures, when a great deal of work had already been done. I was not involved in any voting because we reached unanimous decisions. I was able, at least towards the end of the Committee, to make a contribution and assist in reaching those unanimous decisions. It is possible, at the halfway stage, for someone else to be drafted in if there is a specific problem. It has been said that hon. Members can read and do not always need counsel to give them detailed information. They can also read the past reports and details of the Committee so that they can make a significant contribution, together with the three other members, to the Committee's final decision.
It would be possible to have a reform in line with the provisions contained in the Committee report that could be seen as an advancement. If there is a massive problem for the Committee to sustain its quorum of three, it could be extended to a Committee of five Members.
I have served on only one such Committee. It lasted for about eight days and dealt with the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill concerning the road race in that district. If a problem arose over the provision we are discussing, some hon. Members here tonight who have revealed that they have never been involved in such procedure could offer to take up the fifth position if we decide that that is a viable alternative.

Mr. Roger Moate: On the face of it, the proposition to reduce a quorum from three to two is the narrowest of procedural points, and I am sure that I would be brought to order if I sought too stray to far from it. However, tonight's debate has shown beyond doubt that that small procedural matter arises only because of some major principles—a confusion of principles—stemming largely from Ministers.
We would not be in this position if we had thought out clearly the strategy we were adopting on railway policy, particularly with regard to the Channel tunnel rail link. If we had clearly thought out our approach to major planning matters, particularly in the light of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, we should not be in this position.
Inevitably, when our principles become confused and our hypotheses muddled, we get into trouble, as we are now. If my right hon. and hon. Friends do not heed the problem we are facing, they should think of the problems that we are likely to face when we come to the further legislation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He spoke of the next major Bill directly relevant to this proposition—that dealing with the high-speed rail link.
If hon. Members on the private Bill Committee are finding themselves in difficulty, imagine the problems that the House will face when we come to a Bill of such immensity and complexity that it will make the King's Cross Railways Bill seem the most modest of propositions. If we do not get this right, how shall we face further proposals of this kind? It is a muddle and the House


should not try to resolve it by passing a motion in an attempt to put a plaster on what I would call a gaping wound.
I come to the fundamental problem about planning. It is preposterous—the absurdity of it has been made clear tonight—that a planning matter of this magnitude should be determined by a Committee of four Members. It is even more absurd to suggest that that number should be reduced on occasions to two. Because it is an absurd proposition, the House should not accept it.
The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure tackled the proposition head on and concluded that major planning matters of this kind were inappropriate to be dealt with by this method. The House has had that report for some time, and its conclusions commanded general support from the Front Benches. Its proposals were probably torpedoed in Whitehall by the large number of parliamentary draftsmen who have great skills in handling this procedure. I do not think that politically there were any arguments against what was proposed. If we are to deal sensibly with major planning matters of great concern to the British people, we must get the procedures right, and they are not right at present.
Even if we accepted the Select Committee's report on private Bill procedure, it would not necessarily help us with Bills of this kind. It would still be a matter to be determined by the Government whether the King's Cross proposals—or, indeed, a high-speed rail link proposal—should be dealt with by the planning procedures outside the House, by the hybrid Bill procedure in the House or by a special development order. Those are still political decisions, but it is clear that the present procedure is totally inappropriate for a matter of this magnitude.
Hence, our first mistake has been not to face up to the planning matters. We also have it wrong in terms of the railways, because it is fundamentally ridiculous that a small Committee of four Members—reduced to two on certain occasions—should have almost the power of life and death over something that the Government regard as critical—the hub of the ultimate high-speed rail link linking the Channel tunnel and the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is a wrong proposition. It is a matter of public policy, and the Government should have determined at a much earlier stage that it was a matter of public policy, that the Government were involved and that it should have been a hybrid Bill. A hybrid Bill would have allowed us to avoid the sort of problems that we are now facing, for we would have had a larger Committee, the problems of a quorum would have been avoided and there would have been no difficulty over attendance. The Channel Tunnel Bill is evidence of that.
There are disadvantages and advantages in all procedures, but we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves today if the Government had faced up to that responsibility. They will have to face up to it when we come to further legislation, in relation particularly to the high-speed link. So again we have a muddle, and it has produced the problem that, we face.
I had the privilege—if that is the word—of serving on a similar Committee, through it was not quite so long. I was Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the Ginns and Gutteridge Crematorium Bill, and deliberated for 26 days. I learned a lot about the burning of bodies, about smells and many other things, and, while it probably did not contribute much to my political knowledge, it has

resulted in my being sympathetic to those who serve on the Committee with which we are now concerned. One appreciates the difficulties that they face.
I also had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, and, because of that, I reached a different conclusion from that reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who selected a quotation from the report emphasising why it was difficult for four Members to stay permanently on a Committee. The conclusion that that Select Committee reached was contrary to the proposition that we are facing today.
Our proposal—I gather that most people are in favour of the conclusions of the report—was not that we should allow the quorum ever to be reduced to two: it was that the Committee should be increased to five and that the quorum should stay at three, which is the quorum that we have now. If we are minded to implement the Select Committee's report, we must not reduce the quorum to two. The proposition was clearly that it should remain at three, but that the size of the Committee be increased to five.
A further important recommendation was that the members of such private Bill Committees should be drawn from a large panel of Members who would, in effect, be volunteers at the beginning of a Session to serve on such Committees. They would volunteer because they felt that they could spare the time or give priority to such Committees or because they enjoyed them. Many hon. Members enjoy private Bill Committee work, and I do not think that there would be a problem in having such a panel. It must be better to have volunteers rather than pressed men.
I am proud to have served on that Select Committee, and its report, in my view, is one of the best documents the House has produced. It added up to a valuable package. It would have allowed the House to avoid many of the problems that we face today. It would have resulted in better decisions and given greater justice to petitioners and others. Therefore, it would be wrong tonight to deal with the small problem that has arisen in this case and ignore the recommendations of the Select Committee. We should implement the report as a whole.
I agree with those who say that it is wrong in the middle of proceedings suddenly to change the rules. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton—he was out of the Chamber when I expressed my admiration for the service that he has given—to say that the petitioners will not lose. He has not explained why they would not lose by the Committee being reduced from four to two. Is he saying that at no time is the quality of decision-making by four superior to that of two? If so, we should always have had a quorum of two. I cannot understand his argument.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am not making the case that a decision made by two is as good as a decision made by four, and in this case the decision will be made by four after an exhaustive examination of all the evidence put before us, including that which has been put before other members of the Committee when one has been out of the room in the proceedings on the Bill hitherto. So unless my hon. Friend is saying that the quorum of a Committee of four should always be four, I do not understand the logic of his argument.

Mr. Moate: I remind my hon. Friend that, although the quorum is three, there is a strict injunction on all Members that they should be in attendance at all times and that the reduction to three should be exercised very sparingly indeed. The Chairman has the power to report to the House—I do not think that the power is exercised any longer—any Member who is absent for quite a short time, so the quorum is very much a fallback.
If the general rule is that four hon. Members should be present, and three on occasions, that rule should apply throughout the proceedings. Otherwise, petitioners who lose their case might feel aggrieved that for much of the proceedings, when they were putting their case, only half the Committee members were present.
The House should not pass the motion. We should follow the recommendations of the Select Committee and not reduce the quorum to two. That was specifically rejected in the report. A Committee of two is an absurdity.

Mr. Peter Snape: Like the Government, the Opposition do not have any official view on this motion, as it is a House of Commons matter and it is for all hon. Members to make up their minds accordingly. Having served on one or two of the private Bill Committees to which the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—who spoke to this proposal in his usual able and amusing way—referred, I have great sympathy for him and his Committee members.
I served on the two Channel tunnel Committees, in 1975 and in 1985, the latter of which spilled over into 1986. They were hybrid Bills. I am talking about longevity rather than procedure. They were long-drawn-out affairs. I do not claim the same affinity with my Whips' office that the hon. Gentleman obviously has with his, but I was rewarded on the last occasion by being put on to the Standing Committee that followed the Second Reading of that Bill. I have some experience of long-running Committees and the disruption that they cause to the daily lives of hon. Members. For that reason, I shall be voting for the motion.
The Committee is unanimous in its view; that fact should make some impression on hon. Members. The fact that, if we pass this motion, we will be accepting a quorum of two should not concern us too much. If the Committee consists of only four hon. Members, and three hon. Members form a quorum, as the hon. Member for Tatton rightly said in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), it is not that two people are taking the decision—the whole Committee is taking the decision—but that some of the evidence will be heard by a smaller number than makes up the Committee. That is not unusual. I point out to the hon. Member for Faversham and some of my hon. Friends that, if the quorum for debates on the Floor of the House was 75 per cent. of hon. Members, the House would be a much quieter place.
Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate agrees on the inappropriate nature of our proceedings for schemes of that magnitude. The hybrid Bill on the Channel tunnel was not an effective way of agreeing, debating or discussing what could be said to be the major civil engineering project of this century. For a Committee of that size to be responsible for a decision of that magnitude is not a sensible way for the House to proceed.
As all hon. Members know, one of the problems with the railways is that, traditionally, any alteration to a railwaay building or to the existing railway system must be done in this laborious way. That is something that we should examine. For the Channel tunnel, the King's Cross terminal and the link from the Channel tunnel that will join it with King's Cross—indeed, the railway links with the rest of the country—to be decided in that way is nonsense to say the least and brings the proceedings of the House into disrepute.

Mr. Corbyn: I accept and understand my hon. Friend's point about major railway developments, but does he accept that the private Bill procedure protects some smaller railway developments or railways that might have been closed?

Mr. Snape: I cannot say that my memory goes back that far. I am sure that, in the last century, there were good reasons for the procedures that we still have today, but they have been somewhat outworn by the passage of time.
Another point that most hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned, and one with which I agree, is that normal planning procedures are circumvented by our procedures in the House. Again, that is an understandable matter of concern for those who live in and around the King's Cross area, such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and others who participate regularly in debates such as this. People cannot generally understand how schemes of this magnitude can be debated and decided in this place by a handful of hon. Members using archaic procedures left over from the last century.
I hope that those in the Government responsible for these matters have listened to the debate, that those who have not listened will read the report of the proceedings, and that the House of Commons will do something to reform those procedures which bring all of us into disrepute. However, I repeat that I was impressed by the case made by the hon. Member for Tatton and the other distinguished members of the Committee, and for that reason, if it becomes necessary, I shall be joining them in the Division Lobby tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 24.

Division No. 71]
[9.08 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dewar, Donald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Fearn, Ronald


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Foster, Derek


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Graham, Thomas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal


Cash, William
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy






Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Christopher
Portillo, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hinchliffe, David
Riddick, Graham


Home Robertson, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Irvine, Michael
Sims, Roger


Janman, Tim
Snape, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speller, Tony


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stevens, Lewis


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knapman, Roger
Sumberg, David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lang, Ian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholls, Patrick



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. George Galloway and


Page, Richard
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Paice, James





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Moate, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Nellist, Dave


Bermingham, Gerald
Pike, Peter L.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Rowe, Andrew


Cartwright, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hayes, Jerry
Vaz, Keith


Haynes, Frank



Leighton, Ron
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.

European Community (Right of Residence)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before I call the Minister, I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment, but Members may raise points on the amendment during the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7706/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 8th January 1990 relating to rights of residence; and supports the objective of facilitating the free movement of European Community nationals.
This debate is an opportunity for the House to note the progress of the right of residence directives and their likely impact on the United Kingdom should they be adopted.
For some 10 years, the proposal that Community nationals should enjoy a general right of residence in other member states has been under discussion in Europe. Finally, recognising that deadlock had long been reached, the European Commission, in May last year, withdrew its earlier proposal and later submitted three new draft directives in its place. It is these new draft directives that are under discussion tonight.
Hon. Members may have with them tonight Commission document 4234/90, which was deposited in the House on 30 January. It may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of what it contains. It incorporates some of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament on 13 December. It does not include the latest text of the proposals upon which political agreement was reached at the last Internal Market Council and I will mention tills again a little later. It is a purely formal document issued by the Commission in response to the first opinion of the European Parliament on the original text of the proposals. However, the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which we submitted to the House on 8 January, is an accurate reflection of the latest text of the proposals.
These new measures are designed to provide a right of residence throughout the Community for categories of Community national who do not already have such a right under the free-movement provisions of the EC treaty. Their purpose is to promote the free movement of EC nationals within the Community—a principle to which the Government have long been committed. We have therefore sought to respond throughout the discussions in Europe in the most positive manner possible.
Since July, rapid progress—in the light of the earlier discussions unexpectedly rapid progress—has been made towards agreement among member states. There have been intensive discussions and at the last Internal Market Council, on 21 December, the presidency noted that political agreement on the substance of the directives had been achieved.
The important matter of treaty base, however, remains unsettled. and adoption of the directives cannot take place until the European Assembly's further opinion has been made available and considered by the Council. It may therefore be that formal adoption of these proposals will not be possible at the next meeting of the IMC, on 22 February. If this is the case, the next opportunity for their adoption will arise at the IMC scheduled for 3 April.
I would like to stress at this point that the Government are extremely conscious of the importance of the arrangements which enable Parliament to play a full and effective part in the scrutiny of Community legislation. However, we believed that the situation which arose suddenly in December, when there seemed a strong possibility of agreement to the directives at the IMC meeting, met the exceptional criteria laid down for adoption before a debate. In the event, however, the contingency which we foresaw did not materialise, and I am very glad indeed that the House has this opportunity to consider the draft directives before the question of adoption arises.
There are, as I have said, three draft directives to be considered. They are aimed at students, pensioners, and other non-economically active persons respectively. It may be helpful to the House if I outline in brief the basic provisions of each.
First, the directive on students will apply to any EC national enrolled on a vocational or professional training course at a recognised educational establishment. The spouse and dependent children of the EC national will also benefit, but right of residence will be conditional on possession of sufficient resources to prevent the beneficiaries becoming a financial burden on the host member state. Sickness insurance will also be required where relevant—for example, in countries which operate a medical insurance system rather than a health service as in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, EC nationals who have been employed or self-employed will benefit from the directive on pensioners. They must be in receipt of an invalidity or early retirement pension, or old age benefits, or a pension in respect of an industrial accident or disease. Along with their spouse and dependent relatives, such EC nationals will be accorded a right of residence provided there are sufficient resources to prevent them from becoming a financial burden on the host member state. Sickness insurance will also be required where relevant.
Thirdly, any other EC national will benefit from the Directive on other non-economically active people provided there are sufficient resources to ensure they, and members of their family admitted with them, will not become a financial burden on the host member state. Again, there is a requirement for sickness insurance, if necessary.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Has any attempt been made to quantify the sort of resources that would be needed, concerning the definition of "dependent relatives", and the length and breadth of that expression?

Mr. Lloyd: The length and breadth of the expression is detailed in the draft directives, and is there to be seen. The mimimum amount of resources will be social security payments, whichever form they take, in the relevant country. Resources must be at least at that level.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Am I right in inferring that those people from Hong Kong to whom the Government are to give the right of abode—I totally support the Government in that—will also benefit from these directives?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes—like any other British national, they will be able to take advantage of the directives, under the migratory workers provisions of the treaty, to live in any part of the Community as long as they have the resources to do so.
Although there are three separate directives, there are common threads running through them all, not least the requirement that beneficiaries of each directive should not become a financial burden on the host member state. Member states have agreed that, if the right of residence is to be available on such a wide scale, there must be some protection for their social assistance systems.
Consequently, the directives have been drafted in such a way as to prevent the possibility of EC nationals going from one state to another from becoming a charge on social security funds in each, or even moving solely to maximise their entitlement to social security assistance payments.
In calculating the adequacy of the resources available to applicants, account will be taken of the personal circumstances of those involved. That will avoid the situation of a pensioner in receipt of a small pension, but with substantial personal resources, failing to qualify. Adequate resources are deemed to be resources higher than the level at which social assistance is paid within the relevant member state, as I just told my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is the Government's view that the provisions of the directives contain adequate safeguards to ensure that their implementation would not result in any drain on our social security system.
Each directive also makes provision for family members. In the case of students it will be limited to the spouse and dependant. Pensioners and "others" will be able to have with them their spouse and any dependent relative in the ascending and descending line. Specific provision is also made in each directive to enable the spouse and dependent children of the main beneficiary to work in the host member state. Similar provisions have been in place for a number of years in the case of migrant workers, so for most people the provisions do not add to what is already available.
The provisions about resources being sufficient to prevent claims for social security benefits apply to those dependants in the same way as to the applicant.
Each directive contains an important provision ensuring that the right of residence will exist only so long as the persons concerned continue to meet the criteria that I have just outlined.
In common with other measures relating to free movement, derogation from the provisions of the directives will be possible only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These are the basic provisions of the directives as they now stand. Member states have reached agreement thus far, but such an achievement is the result of considerable effort.
Amendments to the original proposals have had to be made. For example, a scheme to reimburse the host member state for social security claims made by students has been replaced with the requirement to show adequate resources. Similarly, on pensioners it was agreed that simply having a pension was insufficient.
In order properly to assess the resources of pensioners and "others" it has been agreed that the personal circumstances of the applicant, and where appropriate those admitted with him, will be taken into account; and it has been agreed that the necessary amendment will be


made. Another amendment has been agreed in recognition of the concerns of member states about the definition of family members. Initially, those family members who were to benefit from the pensioners and "others" directives were defined by reference to article 10 of regulation 1612/68 EEC.
Several member states noted the outstanding proposals to amend that particular provision in such a way as to widen considerably the definition of family members. Such a degree of relaxation was regarded as an unwelcome development by member states, at least in respect of the right of residence directives, and as a result the directives will now specify precisely to which family members they apply.
We understand that a statement for the Council minutes will be included to the effect that the given definition of family members may be reviewed in the light of any changes to article 10 of the regulation.
It is the Government's view that, if the treaty base for all three directives is changed to article 235—I will mention this again a little later—they represent proposals which should be acceptable to the United Kingdom. Improvements have been made to the original texts, and we believe that it is in the United Kingdom's interests to signal agreement to the proposals.
Acceptance of the proposals will facilitate the free movement of EC nationals within the Community. Naturally, that will work to the benefit of British citizens who will, provided they can meet the requirements of the directives, be free to live elsewhere in the Community should they choose to do so.
We are satisfied that the directives are framed, as far as possible, in such a way as to prevent abuse, and we believe that the overall effect on the United Kingdom and its citizens will be beneficial. The Government do not consider that the number of people who might take advantage of the directive, if made, will significantly increase the numbers of persons entering the United Kingdom.
More people will be able to come here to spend their retirement years, to study or simply to live in the United Kingdom. Equally, British citizens will have the freedom to choose another country of residence if they so wish. British students will be able to move easily to study in another member state. Residence cards will be issued to those exercising rights under the provisions of the directives in much the same way as they are already issued to EC nationals exercising rights of free movement under the aspects of the treaty covering migrant workers.
No new bureaucracy need be created, and in administrative terms the directives will require a minimum of change to our current measures for dealing with EC nationals. Consequently, it is the Government's view that implementation of the proposals would create no significant costs to this country.
One important feature of our consideration of the directives has been the need for the Government to examine the question of Community competence, in particular as it relates to EC nationals who are not workers or otherwise economically active.
We have looked carefully at the development of Community law and we have concluded that the free movement of all Community nationals, whether they are economically active or not, is an objective of the treaty. The right of residence directives therefore fall within the competence of the Community.
Earlier, I mentioned that the important issue of the legal base of the directives, which governs the majority which must be obtained for adoption, remains unsettled. The original Commission proposals were to base the directives on article 7 for students—qualified majority voting; articles 48 and 54 for pensioners—qualified majority voting; and article 100 for "others"—unanimous voting.
Those treaty bases are unacceptable. The United Kingdom has made it clear throughout that we consider that article 235, which requires unanimous voting, is the only appropriate legal base for all three directives, and that view is shared by several other member states. At the last Internal Market Council in December, the Commission undertook to give further consideration to the issue of legal base.
We fully expect, in the light of the discussions to date, that any revised proposal which the Commission may make will reflect the concerns expressed by us and the other member states.
The Government consider that acceptance of the right of residence directives, provided that the legal bases are changed, is the proper course of action. Measures of this kind, which reduce unnecessary obstacles to the freedom of EC nationals to choose where they will live in the Community, is a good example of what the Single European Act means when it speaks of the establishment of an area without internal frontiers in accordance with the treaty. They have no effect on our right and determination to combat the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime, or to control immigration from third countries.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that we in the United Kingdom have nothing to fear from these proposals but much to gain. We have been presented with an opportunity to further the principle of free movement in terms which the Government consider acceptable to the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The directives once again point up the flaws and unfairness of the United Kingdom's immigration rules. Unless the European Community's proposals, welcome though they are, are accompanied by corresponding changes in our rules, they will place some British citizens at a disadvantage compared with EC nationals. British citizens will have less right to family unity, which is at the heart of these rules, than other EC citizens coming to this country.
Europe could give us the opportunity to treat our citizens equally and fairly, which simply is not happening at present. A paragraph of the declaration signed last December by Immigration Ministers says:
There is a growing aspiration, particularly on our continent, that people should be able to move about freely beyond State frontiers: we believe that EC Member States should be all the more diligent in reinforcing their co-operation in that it provides an incentive for others, in other parts of Europe and the world at large, to develop this freedom too.
Those brave words were uttered when western and eastern Europe were beginning to change. As I shall show, some British citizens—potentially, all of us—are not as free as that grand declaration envisages. With freedom of movement, and with the move to harmonisation of the rules of the EC, we should take the opportunity to remove


some of the restrictive rules that cause hardship and, in some cases, are quite blatantly discriminatory against British citizens. If we are to create a people's Europe, we need to go far further than the proposals allow.
We have heard a great deal recently about Hong Kong; the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has already intervened on the subject. This evening, we have the chance to remind ourselves about the rights and limitations of rights that are placed on people living in this country.
There are three proposals before us. The first relates to students. At present, a male student can be joined by his wife, but a female student cannot be joined by her husband as of right. When I raised that question with the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Patronage Secretary, he replied in a written answer that he did not propose to change that rule and that there were sound reasons for not doing so. It is good that only six months later, the Government have become more accommodating. Now, not only can students be joined by their spouses, but, according to the directive, they can also be joined by their families, should they so wish.
The second proposal is more far-reaching. Retired people from the European Community can come to this country and be joined by their families, as can people of independent means who have come to this country to stay for either a short or a long time. No matter how welcome that new proposal may be and no matter what its justification, it brings into sharp focus the difficulties that are faced by people in this country who want to enjoy the same rights. The proposal of family unity points up the disadvantages that British European Community nationals face and will continue to face.
The concept of family unity should be the cornerstone of our policies in this aspect of immigration law. The Minister has been at pains to point out that, even with the new rights, the spouses of people coming to this country and their families will not be a burden on people living in this country. I can see why he made that point, but as I listened, it occurred to me that he was at pains to stress that they would never become a burden on people in this country. What machinery is he proposing is to ensure a continuous assessment of people so that they do not reach a point where they might want to rely on resources from this country?
If family unity is the principle on which the rules are based, that unity must be just as important for rich people as for poor. There may come a time when someone living in this country will, for one reason or another, want to take advantage of some benefit. That seems to argue for examining the rationalising of benefits and public support provisions throughout Europe. I appreciate that that is not the Minister's responsibility, but we should consider that point.
I come to the heart of my criticism of the proposals. I do not oppose them on their merits, but I believe that they point up the difficulties for many in this country. At present, a Frenchman can marry a woman from Pakistan, for example, and can enter the United Kingdom if he is a worker within the meaning of European legislation. He could also be joined by his children under 21 and by his parents because they all come within the European Community's definition of "family".
A British citizen living in England, for example, does not have that automatic right. To marry a non-European Community national, he has first to satisfy the primary purpose rule—rule 50—in the immigration rules. He has to prove that the primary purpose of the marriage is not for his spouse to gain admission to this country. There are other tests that have to be passed. If he wishes his family to join him, there are even greater and more formidable hurdles. They have to satisfy the immigration authorities that they will have adequate accommodation and that they will not be a burden or otherwise come to rely on public funds.
Furthermore, some British citizens have to satisfy the authorities that they are related to their children. Last summer, there was a great deal of controversy about the Government's proposals to impose DNA testing on people who wanted to prove that they were related to their children. Under these rules, the Frenchman to whom I referred does not have to bother with any of that. It is sufficient for him to arrive at Dover or at Heathrow and to say, "This is my wife, these are my children and these are my mother and father. I'm coming in here."

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of the immigration rules, which, as he has rightly pointed out, are discriminatory, but of the use of delays in the operations of the Home Office? Such delays have now become an accepted part of the way in which immigration is conducted in this country. Administrative delays are used as a means of immigration control. It is not just a question of satisfying the tests that my hon. Friend has outlined, but of having to wait in Bombay, New Delhi or Islamabad for many months before an interview is granted and of then having to wait while the information is passed from the Foreign Office to the Home Office. There are then delays at Lunar house, which are still quite prevalent. Does my hon. Friend agree that those delays, which are not part of the rules, exist and cause much hardship and anxiety?

Mr. Darling: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that point. I know that he has a great deal of experience in these matters. Both the Foreign Office and the Home Office use the weapon of delay as an instrument of control. I am dealing with the case of a constituent who hopes to be joined by his wife. A great deal of delay arose because we had to discover whether the Home Office or the Foreign Office should answer our correspondence, and indeed, whether a Minister or something called the correspondence unit should answer my letters. The delays are inordinate. No one will tell me what they are trying to find out.
The declaration to which I referred at the beginning of my speech talks about free movement and a free people's Europe. Some British citizens living in this country do not enjoy the freedom that will be conferred on European nationals under the regulations. It is wrong that the Frenchman to whom I referred is placed at a great advantage compared with an English, Scots or Welshman who wants to do exactly the same thing as the Frenchman. It is ironic that an EEC national of another country should have more rights than a Briton. The Government will have to address that problem.
The same problem arises with children. Under the EEC regulations, young people under the age of 21 are counted as children. Under the United Kingdom immigration


rules, a child is counted as a child only if it is under the age of 18. I suspect that all hon. Members consider that if they have children they will always be the parents of those children. Nothing magical happens at 18 or 21 to stop them being their children. Under the EEC regulations, the definition of family does not have a cut-off point.
The regulations are welcome, but they point up the difficulties faced by immigrants. The Government are not prepared to tackle those problems. The Minister should tell us whether, in the people's Europe that we are now entering, he is prepared to consider the plight of many people resident in this country who find it increasingly difficult to be joined by their families—to whom they are closely attached—or to marry the person of their choice. I suspect that the Minister will reply in the negative.
It is ironic that the European convention on human rights provides that everyone of marriageable age should be free to marry. In theory, we are all free to marry, but not if we choose to marry someone, for example, from the Indian sub-continent. Although in theory the primary purpose rule applies to everyone, in practice it is applied only to spouses from certain parts of the world.
If everyone in the House is in favour of family unity, we should give it some substance and not simply use the words as a slogan to collect votes at election time. I fear that many hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, say one thing to their constituents and vote the other way when given the opportunity.
Europe gives us an opportunity to harmonise rules. We are not talking about primary immigration. We are discussing the need to treat our citizens equally. If the regulations are put into effect, the extraordinary result will be that people living in continental Europe will have greater rights to live with their wife, mother, father or children than people who live in Britain. People in Britain will wonder how that can he the case.
It will be open to a British citizen to go to Paris or Germany and become a worker in the sense of the EEC regulations and then come back to Britain to get round the British regulations. We should avoid that ridiculous position.
I wish to deal with three further points. I understand that the regulations are at a preliminary stage and that the Government will come back with definite proposals. As I understood it, the Minister welcomed this opportunity of a preliminary debate on the substance of the directives. No matter: I shall make the points anyway, because they have some substance—

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I commended the draft directives to the House and said that, although the Government were determined to see that the legal base was changed, we believe that the political agreement that has already been reached is sensible and satisfactory and we hope that the House will agree with us on that.

Mr. Darling: I obviously misunderstood the Minister. However, the point that I am about to make still stands because the issues will arise time and again.
First, I refer to harmonisation—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on this point, about which we should be absolutely clear. It is my understanding that there will not be an opportunity to discuss the regulations again, providing that the understanding to which the Minister referred materialises and that the regulations

obtain a two-thirds majority at the Council of Ministers, possibly at the end of next month. If my hon. Friend thinks that there may be an opportunity to exercise other matters at large, that is one thing, but I believe that there will be an opportunity in respect of these regulations also.

Mr. Darling: I fear that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall now preface my three points with the obvious remark that these issues arise now and will arise again and again and again, because they do not directly fall within the scope of the directives. My hon. Friend has made a good point about the directives, because the discussions are between Ministers, and the House will not get an opportunity to discuss them further, despite the fact that the constituents of many hon. Members will be concerned, not only with the directives and the subject matter that they cover, but with the matters that they could have covered but do not.
At long last, I reach the three other points that I have wanted to mention and on which I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments. First, what is happening about the Schengen agreement? No debate on immigration rules would be complete without a reference to it. We are not a party to the treaty, which is between the Benelux countries, France and West Germany, but we send observers. Completely against the odds, the Schengen agreement was not signed last December because of objections mainly from European non-governmental organisations that were concerned about the ramshackle bureaucracy that it would create, together with the potential for discriminatory practices in the control of movement.
I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know the Government's view on the current state of the Schengen agreement, because it has some bearing on this country. There is no doubt that it is the blueprint for the regime that will prevail after 1992 and it is referred to when the Trevi group of Ministers meet from time to time.
My second point is entirely connnected with the directives. Undoubtedly, as we move towards more harmonisation and common rules throughout the EEC, we shall need safeguards and an appeals system. The Minister has talked about the test of whether someone will become a burden on the public purse. There are always two or three interpretations of individual circumstances. The need for an appeals system in this matter, just as with every other immigration rule, is growing greater by the day. As the decisions of immigration officers often cannot be questioned and hon. Members' rights to intervene have been severely curtailed, the quality of the decision-making is deteriorating. That is not in the interests of any view of justice or of the good workings of Europe. The time for an independent watchdog to supervise such matters is long overdue, but I dare say that we shall return to that matter on many occasions.
Thirdly, our system for dealing with emergency applications to enter this country leaves much to be desired. The directives are about the right of families to come to this country. I need hardly remind the Minister that, only two weeks ago, we had the appalling spectacle of a family trying to come to their father's or their uncle's funeral in this country and being cross-examined by an immigration officer about the number of water buffalo that one of their relatives had owned when he lived in Pakistan.
That sort of thing is thoroughly distasteful, and we really ought to avoid it. What we need is an efficient and speedy system of resolving these problems.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock): The hon. Gentleman talks about an efficient and speedy system. Surely the system will be far more efficient and speedy if it is simply a matter of rules laid down by the House being interpreted honestly and with integrity—as they are—by the professionals concerned, rather than those professionals having to put up with the interference of Members of Parliament, who are concerned not so much with whether the rules are being properly applied as, for obvious reasons, with getting votes in their constituencies.

Mr. Darling: That is a fatuous point. I am aware of the hon. Member's views on these matters, but it would not be particularly useful to go into them. Most hon. Members will know that, with the best will in the world, officials interpreting any rules, whether about immigration or any other matter, make mistakes. It seems to me that there is a great deal of merit in having an appeal system. My experience is that, if one knows that one's decision may be questioned or queried, it tends to be of a higher quality than it is if one knows that it will never be looked at again.
Lastly, I should like the Minister to talk about what is happening generally about the imposition of a common visa regime in respect of third countries. Quite clearly, that has a major bearing on the way in which these directives will work. It seems to me that, as Europe grows larger, in the political sense—perhaps by the day—there will be more movement. It will be a Europe in which people move across the old borders. There will be increasing demands from those who wish to marry or to form relationships with people outside Europe, and those demands will have to be considered and accommodated.
I hope that we shall be able to avoid having a web of rules. I hope that we shall be able to avoid an extension of bureacracy—an extension which I fear we could get. If, at some future time, the Government come forward with proposals to remove the obvious difficulties that we have created by conferring rights on EEC nationals while ignoring the plight of a large number of our own citizens, many people in this country will be profoundly grateful. At long last they will begin to think that all British citizens are treated equally, rather than that some getting treatment at the expense of others.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has done the House a service by drawing attention, in the main part of his speech, to the fact that the document highlights a new dimension of inconsistency between immigration rules under British law and immigration rules under EC law. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no doubt whatever that much greater rights are now being given to EC nationals than are available to our own citizens. That matter should be the subject of a proper, and perhaps detailed, debate in the House.
Before turning to the kernel of that argument, let me begin, as so often on these nocturnal occasions, with a ritual protest about the inadequate way in which the House continues to scrutinise EC legislation. Rarely have we seen a more shameful example of our weak powers and unsatisfactory procedures in that regard. It is a matter of record, in Hansard recently, that during the past 12 months the European Commission sent to the House 765 directives or documents, consisting of well over 10,000 pages. A great many of them have become, or are in the

process of becoming, law applicable to our subjects. Those documents, if they are scrutinised at all before being rubber-stamped, are scrutinised in late-night debates lasting only one and a half hours. They come to us in indigestible lumps. The situation is totally unsatisfactory, and this directive is a classic example of the need for better scrutiny.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good idea if, once every two weeks, we were to devote a day to these matters? Does he agree that that would have the added advantage of helping the Government in their legislative desires and ambitions?

Mr. Aitken: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I would be in favour of the extra day and of curbing some of the legislative excesses. I have a suspicion, perhaps an unworthy one, that tonight in particular my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have indulged in skilful stage management by putting on the debate as late as possible, when the House is as empty as possible, with the Minister making as technical a speech as possible, thereby luring us all into such a comatose state that we do not notice what is happening.
A radical change is being instituted in our immigration laws. We are right to draw attention to it. Let us begin by reminding ourselves of the status quo on immigration law. This is a highly populated island. Successive Governments for over a quarter of a century have exercised a policy of strict and, on the whole, fair immigration control. The basis of that control is a mixture of laws and immigration rules, which are carefully worded, which have been lengthily debated and which on the whole are precise.
The EC directive drives not merely a coach and horses through our immigration laws but, in effect, a whole succession of European juggernauts, which will completely change much of the basis of our immigration laws. For example, the directive extends the right of residence in Britain not merely to all 280 million EC nationals but to their families and relatives, many of whom will not even have to be EC nationals themselves. It may not add up to the River Tiber—

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's argument, but he seems to be developing the line that the directive is making a huge change. It is not. The big change came with the signing of the treaty, which enabled those who are economically active to move freely about the Community. The directive will add a few much smaller groups. It defines them and makes it possible for them to move under the treaty. It is not the vast change that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Aitken: I was not born yesterday. I have read the document. Of course it is true that hitherto workers have had the right to move freely around the Community, but this is a big extension and not a trivial add-on, as the Minister suggests. I shall come to the precise definitions, woolly and vague as they are. They include not merely pensioners but a category of non-economically active persons and, most interestingly, a massive extension of the dependant category. We shall consider that closely.
I do not wish to over-dramatise the position. Before the Minister interrupted me, I was about to say that I do not think that the changes in the immigration rules will amount to the Tiber foaming with much blood, but it will be a case of the immigration headquarters at Croydon


bulging at the seams with new applications. We should recognise that there will be a significant and substantial extension.
One asks the question: have the British people been consulted about the changes? Can even the Minister understand the implications of the changes that he is pushing through? The reason I ask that follows the Minister's intervention. I am not sure that he can have satisfactorily read the directive; certainly I shall be fascinated if he can satisfactorily explain the definitions of families who will be able to come in.
I shall read to the House two or three lines from the Government's explanatory memorandum. The paragraph headed "Policy implications" deals with the rights of dependants of EC nationals to exercise their right of residence in this country. It says:
The new wording specifies that the family members who may benefit from the provisions of the Right of Residence Directives are those currently covered by Regulation 1612/68.
That is the change to which the Minister referred as not very great. The paragraph continues:
It is, however, proposed to include in the Council minutes a statement as to the possibility of a review of the given definition of members of family in the light of the outcome of proceedings on the proposal for a Regulation amending Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68.
What does all that Euro-jargon mean? It means that no one has a clue what the definition of dependant, families or relatives of EC nationals who will have the right of residence in this country will be. If ever there was a foggy, inadequate, vague definition of dependant, this is it. The Government's explanatory memorandum, which is a polite title for the verbiage that I have just read, shows how extraordinarily vague the category of dependant will be.
As the category of dependant cannot be satisfactorily defined, will the Minister give a definition of the phrase "non-economically active persons"? We are giving right of residence in this country to pensioners and other non-economically active persons. I am anxious about that phrase, because I suspect that it will mean the unemployed, the unemployable, the underclass and the "don't want to work" class.
I say this with some feeling, because I represent a constituency that was much troubled by what was known as the "dole-on-sea" phenomenon a year or two ago. As a result of boarding house keepers placing advertisements in the poorer districts because they could not fill their rooms, they were able to recruit large numbers of people who could not find work or, as we more often thought, people who did not want to work, to the south coast by a sort of magnet approach. All sorts of social problems flowed from that migration. I do not like the notion that we shall have a dole-on-sea syndrome with people from, not just the north of England, but the whole of Europe being attracted into a district. That is wrong and we need a much more precise definition than anything given in the explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that, in the light of the greenhouse effect that some people are forecasting, the legislation could have the opposite intention?

Mr. Aitken: I presume that my hon. Friend means that my constituency is likely to become the riveria of Europe.
That would no doubt be agreeable but, once again, the immigration consequence of the document needs to be considered.
Hong Kong has been referred to tonight. In this House, certainly on the Government Benches, we are contemplating a battle royal on the subject of Hong Kong. The heavy artillery of the Foreign Secretary and the big guns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will shortly be locked in combat. We shall hear a great deal about the flow of Hong Kong immigration and whether we should give 50,000 passports.
If we look closely at the document and consider its implications because of the new rights given to EC nationals, residents and their families, we see that there is a huge, not just loophole, but bolthole, in the EC rules for Hong Kong residents and many others. The House may not be aware, but the easiest place in the European Community to get a passport today is Portugal. All one has to do is buy a modest residence, keep it for three years—one does not have to live there—and having done so, one can get a Portuguese passport and thus become an EC citizen and resident.
Therefore, any Hong Kong nationals who are denied passports and entry into Britain simply have to club together, so that somebody buys a small villa in Portugal at a low cost. Within three years, under these extremely vague rules, they can bring in their entire family, dependants, and presumably many other relatives, without any of the checks and balances that exist under our immigration rules. If the British public want this, and it is intended by Parliament, so be it. However, such immigration by stealth, round the back door, through those EC methods, is not what this Parliament has yet accepted as right.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): Will my hon. Friend consider that a Hong Kong resident would not have to go to Portugal to buy a villa, but would be able to go to Macau, just across the water from Hong Kong? All Macau residents will be able to move to Portugal at any time they wish.

Mr. Cormack: When my hon. Friend answers the point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), will he consider that residents from Hong Kong, from wherever they come, are perhaps more likely to enjoy living in the climate of the south of France, than Bolton or Bootle? Therefore, the argument can be turned to good effect by those of us who feel that the Hong Kong people may come here, but many of them may choose to live not in Great Britain but in other parts of the Community.

Mr. Aitken: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is a case of special pleading and seems to be a question of hope over experience, because all evidence suggests that this country is still a mecca for people from all over the world. they come for language and many other reasons, and the flow of Hong Kong nationals within the Community, from wherever they come, is more likely to be to here than from here to other outlying parts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) raises a significant point. It is correct—I omitted it—that the loophole is even wider than that which I illustrated when I spoke of people buying Portuguese villas. Hong Kong nationals can easily go to Macau, get


European residence by that route, and then, as EC nationals, they can, with the extensive rights and privileges granted to them, have full right of residence in this country.
I am simply arguing that, instead of turning up at a late hour and nodding these big changes through, we should be aware that they have profound implications, which deserve the full parliamentary attention that was originally requested by the Select Committee.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I am listening with care to the hon. Gentleman's xenophobic ramblings. Given the weather in this country, the relatively low social security benefits and the general decline in the quality of life that has accompanied 10 years of Tory misrule, is he really saying that people from the four corners of the world are panting to come to Ramsgate?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady's eloquence on behalf of Ramsgate means that, if she were to lose her seat, there might be a job for her as the tourist promotion officer there. At the end of the day, these significant changes in the rules are valuable to European nationals. They are not available yet to British citizens. I suspect that the hon. Lady handles as many immigration cases as any hon. Member. She must recognise, as the whole House should—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central recognises—that whether one is for looser or tighter immigration, there is something intrinsically wrong with being offered, on the one hand, a set of British immigration rules that say one thing, and now suddenly, in a midnight debate in the House—[Interruption.] It is not quite midnight, although it feels like it; it has been a long day. On the other hand, we now have a different set of immigration rules offered to us by Europe.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House should debate such matters in a better way. Would the people who are economically inactive, of whom he spoke, who might come to Ramsgate or wherever, automatically qualify for British social security benefits, pensions and so on by coming here?

Mr. Aitken: No. I gather that the Government assure us that, by a mechanism not yet devised—when it is devised it will almost certainly not be large enough to operate, or be quick enough to be operated, in a satisfactory way—somehow there will be no financial loss to Britain because those social security benefits will be transferable across frontiers.
I am not arguing on an economic basis, but pointing out that we are now getting, as a result of the directive, two different sets of immigration rules and two standards. With such double standards, whether one favours one or the other, it is unacceptable that it should happen in this way, in a late-night debate, via a European directive.
The Government, whose relations with the Select Committee on European Legislation are normally good, have not behaved courteously or correctly in this episode, because the Select Committee demanded a debate on the subject, recognising that it was of considerable political importance, but has been denied one. We are now debating it, in effect, after the horse has bolted. The

Government seem to have made every decision and made every concession except one—that is, whether unanimity is required or whether it can be done by majority voting. Other hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation may develop that theme, because the Government have not behaved in a constitutionally correct way towards the Committee. The House should recognise that the changes in the immigration rules are being carried out in a wrong parliamentary way.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) finished on a note that I wish to take up. There are two themes to tonight's debate—the substance of the matter and the merits that have already exercised the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Thanet, South. However, the underlying theme is that of the constitution and parliamentary procedure, and it is to the latter that I wish to direct the attention of the House. While I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South in his reference to the relationship between the Government and the Select Committee—which is not good on that matter, although I hasten to add that there is a good understanding on most matters—the damage is not to the Committee but to the House and to parliamentary procedure.
The issues before us are of considerable constitutional significance because they show that we do not deal properly with advising the House on what is afoot in the European Community in respect of institutions and developments. The Committee that I have the honour to chair cannot do that, because the House has not provided it with adequate terms of reference, a matter that we hope will soon be addressed by the Government. The current arrangements could work better. They have broken down in spirit, if not in letter, on this occasion. Therefore, if I appear to be tedious in reading some of the verbatim reports of the Committee and the correspondence that has passed between the Minister and myself on behalf of that Committee, I apologise. However, it is important to have these matters on record because, irrespective of whatever of the substance of the matter may come back to haunt us in the future, the procedural matters relating to this debate may do so, although I hope not.
The treaty base was referred to by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. The Single European Act changed the whole outlook in respect of decision-making in the Community. No longer was it possible for a single member to delay or to hold up decision-making; indeed, the purpose of parts of the Single European Act, as the Leader of the House told us when he was Foreign Secretary, was to streamline and speed up decision-making. Vast areas of decision-making were transferred from, in effect, unanimity to qualified majority voting.
There are 76 votes on the Council of Ministers, 54 of which are required to pass a matter requiring a qualified majority, and 23 to block. The United Kingdom has 10 votes. I shall not go through the other member states as it would take too long. The important question is whether the Commission promulgates a regulation under an article of the treaty that requires qualified majority voting, simple majority voting or unanimity. It is those three choices. If it promulgates it under unanimity, the powers of the


Government and the influence of the House—because that is what these debates are supposed to be about—is much the greater.
The articles that have been quoted in respect of these regulations are 7, 8A, 49, and 54. As the Minister said in his opening speech, they require qualified majority voting. Articles 100 and 235 require unanimity.
The difference of opinion that the Government have with the Commission, probably rightly, is on whether freedom of movement and residence of economically non-active persons can properly come under the first four articles that I read out. There has been some discussion and, as we heard from the Minister and as we shall hear later, there is probably an expectation—I put it no higher than that—that ultimately these regulations will be retabled or withdrawn or the Council could agree unanimously to translate them into articles 100 and 235, but on condition that we agree to the matters in hand. That was part of the deal.
Let me deal now with our scrutiny procedure. For the record, because it is relatively unknown I want to read out the resolution of the House of 30 October 1980. It says:
"Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &amp;c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—
(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not he withheld, or
(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld; and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 843–4.]
That matter was recommended by the Williams committee, which sat between 1976 and 1978, and was put through the House under the leadership of the noble Lord St. John of Fawsley, now a well-known Member of the other place.
The proposals before us have a long history. They were first promulgated in 1974 in a different form and subsequently withdrawn. They were retabled by the Commission as recently as 29 June 1989. On 20 October, the Government then published, as is their wont, the memorandum, from which the hon. Member for Thanet, South quoted, and on 25 October the Select Committee, in its 35th report, HCI5, XXXV, said:
The explanatory memorandum recalls that the United Kingdom has reserved its position on these proposals but, if they were agreed, this wider definition of family members would also apply in the case of persons covered by the draft Directive on pensioners and other non-economically active people. This would have the effect of further increasing the number of third-country nationals with the right of entry to the United Kingdom under Community law.
All that is well known to the House—it has been rehearsed in debates already—but I want to put on record the exchanges between ourselves, the Minister and the House in that respect.
The next thing that happened was that the Select Committee received a letter from the Minister on 19 December 1989. It is fairly long, but it is right that I should quote it in full. It says:
At its meeting on 25 October the Scrutiny Committee understandably concluded that in view of their legal and political importance these documents should be debated. We have recently been seeking to arrange a debate, but it has not proved possible to re-arrange business in the short time

available before the House rises and I thought you ought to know that there is a possibility of agreement being reached in the Community before a debate can be held.
This is because progress in the discussions (after, as you know, a very long period of deadlock) has recently quickened markedly. At a meeting of the Internal Market Council on 23 November, a settlement was reached which adequately deals with the concerns which we and a number of other Member States had to ensure that non-economically active EC nationals who take up residence in another country would not become a burden on that country's public funds. In the light of this settlement the French Presidency has been pressing hard for the adoption of the Directives, and the European Council on 8–9 December referred to them as 'an important measure which is scheduled for adoption by the end of the year'. At the same time, the Government has looked again at the question of Community competence and has concluded that our longstanding reserve can now be lifted, provided cur earlier concerns about the legal base can be resolved.
The matter will come up again at the meeting of the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December, at which the Presidency will be pressing for a final decision on all three Directives. As the drafts currently stand, we will have a difference with the Commission and with some other Member States over the proposed legal bases. Given the Presidency's eagerness for a decision there is, however, now a chance that we can secure the legal bases we want provided that we and other Member States can agree to accept the Directives at this meeting.
That was the meeting of 21–22 December.
In these circumstances, in order to secure negotiating advantage, we would like to hold open the possibility of agreeing to the Directives, without putting on a scrutiny reserve, notwithstanding that it has not yet proved possible to arrange a debate on the legal bases which we consider more satisfactory.
It is of course conceivable that matters will not go quite this way and that it will after all be possible to have a debate before final conclusions are reached. Needless to say, that would normally be our strong preference. We shall in any event be submitting a further Explanatory Memorandum and seeking to arrange debate as soon as possible in the New Year. After anxious consideration, however, we are satisfied that, given the extra momentum which the proposals have gathered since the end of November, it would be wrong to pass up the chance of a satisfactory outcome on the grounds that it has not so far been possible to arrange a debate.
Happily, there was no final agreement on the date. I ought to say here and now that the members of the Committee and I are obliged to the Minister for that letter: it was full and frank, and it told us the exact position. To be fair, any of us in the position of the Minister sitting in that chair might well have done the same thing.
I ought to add that the matters that I am now rehearsing represent the unanimous view of the Committee which understands the Minister's position; but it means that, by the end of the year, the following position has emerged. After nearly 10 years, we have a proposal, albeit a modified one. We recommended a debate many years ago on this topic, but we have a debate recommended on the proposals but there is a possibility that the Government will agree to them in substance prior to debate and—here I quote from our memorandum of 20 December—
agree to adoption of these proposals prior to a debate being held. In essence, the Minister anticipates that it may be possible to trade willingness to agree at the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December for the Government's preferred choice of Treaty base.
That was a new element that the Committee espied in these matters: in our view, there was a very big jump between package bargaining over a fairly wide area, which we well understand must take place, and the fact that, in order to change the treaty base, one must agree to the substance of the proposal.
The Minister kindly wrote to me again on 9 January and I will put what he said on the record. He has dealt with us scrupulously on this matter, and I want to emphasise that. He said:
At the IMC on 21 December it was noted that neither Danish nor United Kingdom Parliamentary scrutiny procedures had been completed; there was further discussion, but no final agreement, on the question of legal base; and a number of other, minor, issues remained unsettled. As a result, no vote was taken on any of the Directives. The Presidency recorded, however, that political agreement on the substance of the texts had been reached, subject to the completion of Danish and United Kingdom Parliamentary procedures, and suggested that the IMC should give further consideration to the draft Directives at its next meeting on 22 February.
In his opening remarks, the Minister told us that that expectation was to come—the expectation that the treaty base will be changed—but of course that does not really alter the fact that at an earlier stage the Government were willing to go ahead—perhaps justifiably, perhaps not—before a debate in the House, and that the issue of trading—these are the words we used—treaty base in substance has in our judgment probably occurred.
Therefore, the Committee issued another report, which I hope hon. Members have been able to get from the Vote Office, on 17 January, HC II-VII of this Session, which says:
The Committee was therefore surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals at the Internal Market Council on 21–22 December, subject to United Kingdom and Danish scrutiny reserves, and that the only remaining issues for consideration are the appropriate legal bases for the Directives and a number of minor matters. In effect, the Government appeared to have agreed to the substance of the proposal, albeit with a Parliamentary scrutiny reserve, without securing agreement on its preferred choice of legal base.
I interpolate here a reference to what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, which was that that was expected, and of course it could well be part of the political agreement to which he referred.
The report continues:
The Department's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the Government now accepts that it is reasonable to interpret Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for persons as applying to non-economically active as well as to economically active Community nationals. It is also content that amendments to the proposal have strengthened the understanding that beneficiaries should not become a burden on host Member States. The Committee notes the Government's view that the draft Directives do not pose any major or unacceptable policy implications for the United Kingdom, and its position on the relevance of Article 235 as the appropriate Treaty base in each case. Nevertheless, the Committee maintains its recommendation for the early consideration of these proposals.
The Committee remains disappointed that the Government has not found it possible to afford the House the opportunity to consider these proposals in the decade since the original recommendation until after substantive decisions on their content had been taken. It also reiterates its concern that the Government should have regarded, in this or any similar circumstances, the choice of Treaty base as being negotiable in a similar fashion to the substance of a Commission proposal, given the possible legal implications of adopting Community legislation on inappropriate treaty bases.
In view of the intrinsic importance of the draft Directives, and the circumstances which led to political agreement being reached at the Internal Market Council, the Committee

considers the debate which it has recommended should be held on the Floor of the House, and not in a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
There was a motion down for this batch of documents to be sent to a Standing Committee, but representations were made and that is why we are here now. I place that on the record for the judgment of hon. Members as to the relative importance of this matter—whether it be of substance or procedural, and whether it should have been debated on the Floor of the House or in committee.
The amendment put down by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is entirely on the matter of procedure. Whatever his own views may be on substance, and he has not told us them—not that I necessarily expect him to be here—his amendment reflects absolutely the view of the Select Committee. It has not been selected, and I make no complaint about that, but I wish to put it on record that the unanimous view of the Select Committee is in line with the sentiments expressed in that amendment.
The womb of law in the United Kingdom has been until fairly recently this Chamber and that of the other place. We are now, of course, in a completely different situation; and the linkage between what Ministers do in the Council of Ministers and the influence that we can bring to bear on them before they go to the Council—the extent, to use an in phrase of the moment, of pre-legislative glasnost—is very important. I can only hope that the rather lengthy and perhaps tedious quotations that I have had to put on the record this evening will assist in improving visibility in these matters in the future.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for setting out so clearly and carefully the full effect of the draft directives in relatively few minutes, and I shall try to be brief.
I appreciate the full importance of the EC as a trading bloc, and its necessity to our future prosperity, but I should like to make a few comments on these fairly wide-ranging measures—especially wide-ranging for a Thursday night.
I understand the three draft directives to some extent. I certainly understand the first, which concerns students, and the second, which concerns employees and self-employed pensioners. However, the third directive causes me some concern. It involves the rights of residence for nationals of member states who do not enjoy this right under other provisions of Community law, and members of their families. I thought that my hon. Friend mentioned that this amounted to only a few groups of people, in which case, I must be, as usual, totally naive, because I looked at the directive again and again and I have come to the conclusion that it could apply to everybody.
As the directive concerns only a few groups, can my hon. Friend say whether he has any idea of the potential numbers of people involved, particularly in view of paragraph 23 of the explanatory memorandum, headed "Financial Implications", which says:
there should be no direct increase in costs as a result of these proposals.
If that is so, presumably no great numbers of people will be involved. Once we know the number, perhaps we will be able to say what effect it might have on the housing situation, because in this country we have a greater


population in a smaller number of square miles than many other member countries, and therefore that is of particular importance to us.
Can my hon. Friend say what will be the position of the citizens of East Germany if Germany reunites? Will they automatically have the right of abode here?
The third point I would put to my hon. Friend—and I appreciate that this involves some detail—is that I have always understood that citizens of the French overseas territories have rights of abode, and presumably that will apply in Britain, but it seems unfortunate that some of our own dependencies and protectorates do not have the same privileges. Could my hon. Friend comment on that?
I am not—I say this almost thankfully—a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but I read the note that the Committee
was surprised to learn that political agreement was reached on the substance of the proposals of the Internal Market Council on 21 December.
That seems to be very strong meat.
The criteria used to determine sufficient resources in this case seem to be pretty basic—nothing like the Hong Kong £150,000. How do we determine whether there are sufficient resources? Is some form of means test involved, and how will it be brought about in practical terms?
I also have a copy of the supplementary explanatory memorandum on European Community legislation which I see is somewhat ominously entitled "final" on the front page. Turning to what I guess is the main issue, I see that paragraph 14 suggests:
the legal base for all three draft Directives remains under discussion pending final agreement.
I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend believes that this is the most suitable time to debate this matter. There seem to be several fairly profound legal and political implications.
Indeed, paragraph 15 describes the full operational procedures, and I am afraid that I must read it out in full. It says:
Proposals based on Article 7 or Article 49, among others, attract the Co-operation procedure. If, however, the Commission were to revise their proposals by substituting Article 235, as the legal base for each Directive, the Co-operation procedure would not apply. Until there is agreement on the question of legal base it is not possible to be certain whether the co-operation procedure is relevant.
That seems to me to be of paramount importance.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I made a long speech. He has raised an important point—the bifurcation of a second reading by the European Parliament. He may be under a certain misapprehension about the timing of debates. There has always been a feeling in the House and the Committee that debate at an earlier stage rather than when the final document is ready is more likely to influence the Minister in the Council of Ministers, particularly prior to the common position being taken if the matter is debated a second time. Therefore, rather than having a debate too early, the feeling has been that, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is rather too late.

Mr. Knapman: Perhaps I should have said that we should be careful about drawing conclusions at this stage. Perhaps that would be more acceptable.
Should we be applying to the European Court of Justice to determine these matters, or should we be insisting on article 235? At what stage will my hon. Friend consider whether a veto should be used to force the matter?
Paragraph 16 states:
Similarly, until the legal base is settled it is not possible to say what the voting procedure will be. However, in the event of Article 235 being chosen, each draft Directive will require unanimity.
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is vital to know whether majority voting or unanimity is applicable? Unless we know, we are taking something of a leap in the dark.
If national frontiers are to become things of the past—that is not putting it too strongly—we must be certain that the frontiers of Europe assume even greater significance.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: A great many points have been raised. The House would not take it kindly if I tried to address each of them, so I shall comment on what I consider to be the crucial and essential points. I apologise in advance if I leave out any items that hon. Members consider important. If they draw my attention to them during or after the debate, I shall reply to them in a letter, which I hope will be as full and frank as the one that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) commended for its content if not for its conclusion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said little about the directives, so I presume that he was not too unhappy with them. He wanted us to harmonise the rules that we in the United Kingdom operate for the immigration of dependants from third countries with the European rules governing the movement of dependants between EC countries. We have the rules that best suit our circumstances and we should take decisions on them in the light of our particular national needs.
However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in changing them in certain directions. The EC rules for the movement of those who are economically active predate our entry into the Community. We had no hand in formulating them; they existed during the Labour party's last period in government. The Labour Government did not seek to bring them in line and I quite understand why.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central feels able to tell us now, would he change the rule for dependants so that the maximum age for child dependency is not 18, as it is in our immigration rules for third countries, but 21? The House would be interested to know, and so would I.
He asked about Schengen. We are not associated with Schengen. We do not have observer status there. We are extremely interested in what eventually emerges. No treaty has yet been signed. If it is, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption of what our attitude would be. We do not regard it as a blueprint or model for the rules and arrangements in the wider Community.

Mr. Darling: I am surprised by that, because I had always understood from official and unofficial sources that, first, the Government are kept informed by a civil servant at Schengen and that, secondly, as everyone in Schengen is a member of Trevi, in which the Government are represented, it would be inconceivable for the Benelux countries, France and West Germany to adopt the Schengen rules but seek to do something entirely different by Trevi. If I am wrong, I should welcome a Government statement on that. The previous Home Secretary made a


helpful statement—I am not suggesting that he made an admission—saying that the general thrust of what I am saying is right.
Will the Minister explain why a Frenchman and his wife and family are allowed to enter this country, whereas a British citizen and his wife cannot automatically do the same? That shows the inconsistency in the definition of the "family".

Mr. Lloyd: The French are responsible for those who enter France from third countries. That is not regulated by Community law; nor are our immigration rules. Movement of people from one Community country to another is regulated by Community law. Community nationals are of primary significance and their dependants derive their rights from the EC national. That is why a distinction is made, but it is a smaller problem than the hon. Gentleman thinks.
We are not part of the Schengen discussions. We know only what we are told, what we learn and what we read. Obviously, we are kept in touch, but not in the detail that the hon. Gentleman believes. I have made it pretty clear that what we believe may have been the objective of those discussions, but which has not emerged yet, ought to act as a blueprint for the rest of the Community.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked about the common visa. Again, that has little to do with the directives or with immigration. Discussions are being held to see whether we can agree similar rules for visas for short-term visitors to the Community—not people who wish to settle, but holidaymakers or people who are visiting for a limited period—so that each member country does not have to issue a new visa if a visitor wants to visit several countries and to make it easier for visitors to move between countries. That bears no relation to the directives that we are discussing or to long-term immigration for settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that the directives drive a coach and horses through our immigration controls, but they do not. They extend the rights of movement and residence in the Community, but the reality of those rights exist already for the economically active, who are most likely to move and who represent the greatest numbers. They are not completely insignificant, because pensioners may decide to move to another country if they have the resources to do so. Well-resourced pensioners from the south of France or the Mediterranean may move to the midlands because they like the weather, but I suspect that the movement will tend to be in the opposite direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also thought that the category of "dependant" was extremely unclear. In fact, it has been clear since before we joined the European Community, because it is set out in regulation 1612/68. We are writing in the category in detail and we especially wanted to insist on that because there were proposals in the European Community that the rules should be expanded. We wanted to be certain that no expansion appeared in the new directives as a result of changes to which we might agree elsewhere or which might have taken place without our agreement, so we wanted to insist on that detail. What my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South found most confusing was really a recognition that there was discussion over regulation

1612/68 which at present governs this area, but which may not if it changes. However, there is no doubt that the definition is there to be read and is easily understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) also asked about non-economically active people. They comprise everybody who does not come under some other category and who has sufficient resources to maintain himself at or above the social security levels in whichever European Community country he determines to settle. There is no question about such a person becoming a cost, because he will not be eligible for benefits or social security payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud thought that there must be a cost somewhere. To the country, there must be a movement in of resources because people must bring with them the resources with which they will maintain themselves and any dependants whom they might bring with them.

Mr. Janman: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the cost effect if such immigration were to occur. However, immigration is a subject about which the people of this country feel very strongly, not only in terms of the possible costs to the taxpayer, but as a result of the other concerns, about which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware and about which I do not need to go into detail. If one used his logic about the weather and the direction of immigration and emigration, clearly we should have had massive emigration from Britain to the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent as opposed to immigration into Britain from those places.
If one takes the matter in the context of the European Community, there is a danger of fairly substantial immigration from the countries within the Community that have a lower gross domestic product per head than we do, such as countries in the more southern part of the Community. The concerns about which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has hinted are very real.

Mr. Lloyd: If there is any such danger—and I do not want to go down that track with my hon. Friend now, as the clock is ticking on—it already exists because of the treaty and because of the movement of the economically active, which has nothing to do with the directives. If there is a movement upwards, it will be as a result of the freedom to migrate that people have. There certainly is a movement towards the Mediterranean, which is manifest in the number of British pensioners who are currently resident in Spain. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may have a point, but it is related not to the directives, but to the treaty itself and to the freedom of movement of those who are economically active.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is not here at present, but I want to respond to his point. He suggested quite unwarrantably that queues are used as a weapon and he seemed to be thinking especially of the Indian sub-continent. The queues that were very long there have been reduced sharply in recent years and they are far shorter than they were when we came to office. We have increased the number of officers there in an attempt to make the queues shorter, and we have succeeded in that.
The points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation and was speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, were most important. I


understand his concern that there was a suggestion that there would be full agreement on the issues without a debate. He is right to press the point and I understand why he does. He spent some time going into the background, about which I wish to say a few words.
We were advised only a few days before the meeting on 21 December to which the hon. Gentleman referred that the presidency appeared to be determined to bring the matter to a conclusion before the end of its presidency. The base for two of the directives—I refer again to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—was a qualified majority. It was extremely likely that not only the substance of the directives but a legal base that we did not think right or justified could have been imposed on us.
The hon. Member for Newham, South is frank and honest. He said that he understood that, if he had been in my right hon. and learned Friend's position, he might have made the same decision. We came to the conclusion that, because the directives were to be decided by qualified majority voting, we had to use our best endeavours to ensure that the legal base was changed. We judged that the best way was to agree to the substance and the changes made in the few weeks beforehand, which we were basically in agreement with, but stated that we were not satisfied with the legal base.
I disagreed strongly with the hon. Gentleman when he suggested that the legal base was negotiable. It was not negotiable by us. We have always been prefectly clear that there is only one proper base—article 235. We have stuck to that. The whole purpose of agreeing to the substance of the directives was to give us more leverage to ensure that we secure the proper base. It now looks as if we may be successful. We have had this debate before a final agreement has been made. I am happy on both those points. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes some satisfaction from that.

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure that I can. It is for the members of the Committee to read the report of the debate. I understand from the Minister—perhaps we have not given adequate weight to this—that the changes in the proposals were conterminous with speeding up the

timetable. I concede that the Minister was placed in a difficult position with the presidency, but apparently that is how it works. We regret that there was no opportunity for a debate. There should have been one before Christmas and perhaps one fairly soon afterwards.

Mr. Lloyd: We regret that there was no opportunity for a debate. We should have regretted it even more if we had been lumbered with the directives on the wrong legal base. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee agree with that.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): The main principles of the measures will be widely welcomed by the people affected by them. Although the treaty base is regularly discussed by the British Government and the Commission and may ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, the thrust of the measures is welcome. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they do not affect the British interest because under the treaty of Rome, Britain still has powers to protect the national interest from drugs and other dangers?

Mr. Lloyd: That is absolutely right. We retain those rights both at our frontier and under the fairly narrow but real public policy limitation to remove EC nationals whom it is against the public interest to have here.
I emphasise that, under the treaty of Rome, EC nationals already have freedom of movement and residence to take employment or become self-employed in any other member country. All that the directive does is extend the rights that are implicit in the treaty in defined terms to the other groups that I mentioned. In the process, we wish to make sure that people do not become an expense to our Exchequer or those of other member countries. I commend the proposals to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7706/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 8th January 1990 relating to rights of residence; and supports the objective of facilitating the free movement of European Community nationals.

Oil Seed Rape (Allergy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My purpose in drawing this subject to the attention of the House is to air an issue that is important to the health of the many sufferers who blame flowering oil seed rape for their allergies and to meet the needs of those involved in agriculture, for whom this crop is an important source of income. Both the public and farmers have a right to seek action from the Government in producing a solution to a proven problem.
Oil seed rape is a relatively new crop, appearing in the mid and late 1960s in England and Wales and from 1981 in Scotland. Its popularity, encouraged by Common Market subsidy, has seen a 25-fold increase in its planting in Europe, a 47-fold increase over 21 years in the United Kingdom, and a spectacular rise in Scotland from 0 per cent. to 14 per cent. of the United Kingdom total in only nine years. There has been an estimated 25 per cent. rise in the planting of the crop this year alone.
To clarify the extent of the situation, perhaps the Minister will inform the House, if he can, of the acreage of oil seed rape and of spring-sown oil seed rape that will be grown in 1990 as a percentage of previous years. What are the Government's figures for the acreage of brassica compestris or turnip rape that is to be grown in 1990 and its percentage change? I ask that because I should like to know whether the Minister is aware of the extent to which those forms of rape will extend the flowering period of the rape crop and thus the period during which complaints may occur. If he does not have those figures to hand, perhaps he will respond in writing at a later date, because far from going away, the problem is here to stay and is increasing rather than decreasing.
Oil seed rape is a popular and lucrative cash crop, which is very much suited to Scottish conditions. It is a major agricultural income-earner and has seen a massive and rapid expansion in its planting and thus in the exposure of the public to its effects on health. That creates problems for the general public, agricultural workers and livestock. The Minister may be aware of reports suggesting that oil seed rape may cause disease in animals, especially horses and dogs. I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear whether he believes that the problem requires urgent investigation.
Other factors such as spring sowing, mild winters and new varieties are extending the oil seed rape flowering season and are adding to the problems. Quite simply, this is a situation on the move. Changes in varieties are occurring, especially from single to double low breeds, and in species, with the introduction of brassica compestris rape as well as of spring-grown brassica napus rape with its extended flowering period. All those changes in agricultural techniques will increase and influence allergic responses among the general public and agricultural workers.
Has the Minister any information to hand about the effect of the introduction of double low varieties of oil seed rape on allergic responses? Can he provide any facts about the effect on human health of sulphur-containing

matabolites in cruciferous crops? On what exactly is the present policy of non-intervention based? There is now solid evidence pointing to oil seed rape as a source of health problems. Stories of harmful effects of the crop on health were at first anecdotal, with patients who reported to general practitioners' surgeries showing a wide range of symptoms during the oil seed rape flowering season. Doctors in Angus have consistently drawn that to my attention over many years.
Oil seed rape, with its bright yellow flower and heavy scent, is in some ways a very obvious and easy target at which to direct blame for a range of allergy symptoms, such as eczema, hay fever, coughing, sneezing, headaches, asthma and simple general debilitation. The question is: is it the culprit? Now, thanks to the Angus district council and Dundee university joint research project, there can be no doubt that there is a definite link between oil seed rape and allergic responses. Nor can there be any doubt that the problem is widespread, posing the real possibility of a public health nuisance and of a specific health hazard to agricultural workers.
During the 1989 flowering season, an epidemiological study was carried out in the village of Bowriefauld near Letham, in Angus. Angus district council, to its great credit, funded that study in response to allegations of public health nuisance. Eighty-five adults and 40 children were studied, and medical information obtained before, during and after the flowering season—using questionnaires, diary cards and standard skin and blood tests, along with the monitoring of pollen counts, wind-speed direction, temperatures and pollen collected by the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Invergowrie.
The results were both startling and clear: 46 per cent. of the study population reported symptoms at the time when oil seed rape pollen counts were high and when no other pollens were present. The culprit is clear. Half of those individuals confirmed positive allergy tests. Allergy skin testing revealed that reactivity increased from 5 per cent. before the flowering season to 38 per cent. after the season. That is a massive rise compared to the 20 per cent. sensitivity normally shown for most allergic substances.
Many previously non-allergic persons became reactive—suggesting that oil seed rape is a very potent inducer of allergy. Individuals sensitised to oil seed rape were very likely to become sensitised to other substances also, such as grass pollen, animal danders, and house dust mites. All that suggests that oil seed rape might well be triggering off allergic reactions to other substances. That must be a cause for concern.
As almost half the study group had symptoms that were due to oil seed rape, does the Minister agree that it is reasonable to infer that half the population in areas where oil seed rape is grown may equally be affected by these problems? Do the Government not regard it as alarming that oil seed rape may contribute to the development of other allergies and that it may seriously disturb the immunity of people in contact with the crop? If that is not a spur to action, what would be?
The study gives rise to major doubts about oil seed rape and should have been the stimulus for further detailed research to discover the exact nature of the problem and its solution. But, so far, Government funding has not been forthcoming. Previous experience at the Scottish Crop Research Institute reinforces the evidence and has revealed similar problems for staff working with brassicas as well as other related plants. The problems range from rashes and


blisters, especially on the face and hands, but occasionally more widespread—for example, for staff wearing shorts or short-sleeved shirts—all the way to asthma and hay fever. For some staff the problems have become so severe that they have had to discontinue work with brassica crops. For others there has been a need to avoid contact with those crops, most usually at the time of flowering, either by not entering the glasshouses or seed production tunnels where the plants are in flower, or by wearing gloves or using barrier creams.
There has always been some doubt as to whether pollen alone is involved. Some staff complain of discomfort from breathing what they describe as acrid vapour given off by flowering brassicas. Others are aware of a strong smell, often as far as half a mile from the flowering crop, but suffer no ill effects. Yet others cannot smell the crop but suffer ill effects, which disappear as soon as they are no longer in close proximity to the crop. The men and women working with the crop know and confirm the views of the wider population.
The Minister will know that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has funded research into the harmful effects on deer of ingestion of oil seed rape. That shows an odd sense of priority, given the human suffering. The Minister disagrees, but, as far as I am aware, money was made available for research on animals but none has so far been provided for research on human beings. That is the point of raising the matter.
The Government denied any link between ill health and oil seed rape when I first raised it. I note that in his reply to me of 29 June 1988 the Minister, Lord Skelmersdale, admitted:
Oil seed rape pollen may be allergenic and affect the upper respiratory tract causing allergic rhinitis and the airways causing asthma.
The Angus district study confirms that. Deeper and more detailed probing is required.
The scale of scientific investigation has to be expanded to ensure that the high responses observed initially are maintained in a larger study, and to relate more closely the symptoms observed to specific events in the growth and flowering of oil seed rape. We need to ascertain whether the problem relates purely to pollen release or involves chemicals released by the plant, some of which are mustard oils, which are known from other work to cause acute irritation to skin and mucous membranes.
Given the economic importance of oil seed rape to the Scottish economy, the problem should be resolved by modification of the crop's characteristics and not by its elimination or its restricted growth in unpopulated areas. The required research is such that funding from Government agencies is essential. That is my plea to the Government.
In view of the fact that in Tayside there is an established research group, drawn from several institutions, with the necessary expertise to research the problem, and that two and a half years of experience is already credited to the group, can the Minister explain why it has not been funded, and why funding has not been made available for studies during the 1990 flowering season? Again, is the Minister aware that medical, immunological, agricultural and environmental expertise have been co-ordinated through the environmental health department of Angus district, the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie and the medical school of the university of Dundee?
The ability to tackle the problem exists already. Is the Minister aware of any other research group with such expertise? If so, has the problem been studied in depth over a period? I am anxious that those with expertise should tackle the problem and produce solutions. The means of solving the remaining parts of the medical jigsaw puzzle are there. Is the Minister aware that the problem has been investigated in Tayside for two and a half years? Will he not use the existing expertise and knowledge urgently? I ask him to introduce immediately a two-pronged attack on the problem, with the funding of research into new, non-allergic strains of oil seed rape which would ensure that agriculture will not awaken in a few years to find the health risk totally proven and a major financial crisis on its hands. That can be avoided by action now to investigate and eliminate the problem. Failure to do so will represent serious neglect by the Government.
The second line of attack must be to discover through medical research the exact nature and cause of the allergies which would lead to their elimination and to the end of the suffering of large numbers of people whose only crime is to live near or pass by fields of flowering oil seed rape.
I pay tribute to Les Cameron, the director of environmental health, to the convener of the committee, who happens to be my wife, Councillor Sheena Welsh, and to the councillors of Angus district who have supported the work done by Dr. Parratt of Ninewells hospital and Bill McFarlane Smith of the Scottish Crop Reserach Institute, all of whom have done a public service in providing scientific evidence to track down the source and cause of this major health problem. We do not know the exact nature of the problem, although the symptoms and the human misery attached to it are clear and obvious.
The Angus district study shows that 40 per cent. of persons living in one rural environment become sensitive to the pollen of oil seed rape during the flowering season and many have hay fever symptoms as a result. Conventional grass fever affects at most, only 15 per cent. of the population. Oil seed rape is a major environmental hazard during the months of April to July. That period may well be extended because of the extra growth in the new types of crops.
The position deserves closer attention to seek out the truth and remedy the problems. The Government must act now, rather than awakening later, in a year's time or so, to find a major crisis in one of the nation's leading crops. If oil seed rape is poisoning the general population. we must find out why and cure the problem. Inaction will only inflict greater misery on the population and unnecessarily endanger the livelihoods of farmers. The Government should act now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing an Adjournment debate on a matter of considerable concern. It was first drawn to my attention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I know that the hon. Member for Angus, East has been active on the matter. I join with him in passing on congratulations to his wife and others who have spent some time in considering the issue.
Many people have been worried that oil seed rape has increased the severity of hay fever attacks or has affected


people not previously prone to hay fever. The Government are aware of those concerns and, through various research agencies, are promoting investigations into those links.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the acreages of various types of oil seed rape under cultivation. I am happy to write to him, but it would be best if he put down written questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is present, because I know that there is wider interest in the issue.
It is true that we currently produce around 1 million tonnes of oil seed rape a year. Production of rape seed oil is encouraged under the EC oilseeds regime, under which subsidies are paid to processors of Community seed. Oil seed rape is grown for the production of rape seed oil and meal, which are extracted from the seed by oil seed processors. The oil is used mainly by the food industry, as a cooking oil or in the manufacture of such products as margarine, shortenings and confectionery.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an important alternative crop to cereals for United Kingdom producers. Unlike cereals, which are in surplus in both the Community and the United Kingdom, we are not self-sufficient in seed oils and meals. Rape seed is thus a valuable crop for United Kingdom farmers and makes an important contribution to both our food industry and our balance of payments.
The question of allergenic responses to oil seed rape has to be seen against that general background. The growing of oil seed rape does seem to be associated with an increase in the number of those suffering from allergic reaction. Those reactions may be severe; they may cause headaches, cold or "flu-like symptoms", sneezing, coughing, sore throats and even asthma.
Of course, some people are likely to be sensitive to the pollen of oil seed rape, just as others are sensitive to the pollens of other plants, grasses, trees and various natural substances. Oil seed rape pollens may well cause respiratory symptoms, as do other pollens in those that are sensitive to them. Oil seed rape pollen is heavy and, unlike other pollens, is not widely disseminated by the wind. It is therefore usually localised in its distribution. While these allergic conditions are generally not life-threatening, they are obviously upsetting for the individuals concerned.
The hon. Gentleman argued for research to find out the nature of the problem, but throughout his speech he appeared to have identified the nature of the problem. Contrary to what he implied, there is no conclusive proof of any link between the growing of oil seed rape and any increase in numbers of allergy, hay fever and asthma sufferers.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The reason I am sure of my facts in the matter is that the study conducted in Angus, which was almost pioneering work, showed a definite link and, though on a small scale, it showed enough of the open window to require more study to be conducted. That additional study may lead us to the exact route and nature of the problem. The Angus study showed a definite link. The important point is to find out what it is—whether it is the pollen or some associated chemical—and I am pleading for funds to ensure that a wider study takes place to pin down the exact nature of the problem.

Mr. Forsyth: I am, of course, aware of the studies to wich the hon. Gentleman is referring. Mr. Leslie Cameron, to whom he referred—the director of environmental health for Angus district council—has published has findings from a study which was based largely on anecdotal evidence of people living in villages surrounded by oil seed rape. About 45 per cent. claimed that their health had been affected by the crop.
That was interesting, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was not necessarily conclusive. Indeed, I understand that a separate, and as yet unpublished, study undertaken in Oxfordshire is likely to contradict those findings. I understand that those results will be subject to professional peer review before publication.
The Medical Research Council is the main agency for the disbursement of public funds on medical research, including research into allergy and oil seed rape. It has ready access to the best scientific advice on the selection of projects and has great experience in the selection of soundly based and promising research proposals. The MRC currently funds £1 million of research into allergies. So the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are not providing resources in this area was a little unfair.
I am able to offer something to the hon. Gentleman in response to his criticism that there is no research in this specific area. I am pleased to say that my right hon. and learned Friend recently offered financial support for a project based at Aberdeen university. The grant of some £63,000 has been awarded to the department of environmental and occupational medicine for a three-year period.
That important project will involve a cross-sectional epidemiological study of 2,000 adults in three north-east Scottish general practices with the aim of measuring the prevalence of seasonal allergic symptoms in oil seed rape and non-oil seed rape-growing areas. People with seasonal symptoms will be selected as cases for case-control studies, with particular reference on allergy to oil seed rape and fungi associated with oil seed rape and exposure to volative chemicals associated with oil seed rape plants.
At the same time, the pollen levels in the air in the study areas will be measured and chemical analyses of volatiles, especially dimethyl sulphides, about which the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned, arising from oil seed rape fields will be made. The results of this research should identify the size of any health effects of oil seed rape cultivation and point towards possible causes.
I have mentioned the grant for the work at Aberdeen university and I have described the study. There is also the question of agricultural research. The Scottish Crop Research Institute, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has considerable expertise in the characterisation of crops, varieties, pollens and volatiles as part of its programme of research and development on brassica crops, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one might think that the Government were doing nothing in the matter.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Not enough.

Mr. Forsyth: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but we are clearly doing more than he was aware of when he rose to speak in the debate. The expertise developed by the institute through that programme would be available to medical researchers.
DAFS officials have already had discussions with the institute director about the possibility of more detailed research on oilseed rape, such as research aimed at eliminating or altering in a breeding programme the substance thought to induce the allergic reaction.
The director is currently arranging a meeting of interested parties, the main aims of which would be to review the evidence for and against sensitisation by, and allergic reaction to, oilseed rape, for which the hon. Gentleman was asking; to review the need for further research and development, which meets the hon. Gentleman's point; and to consider the requirements for, and targets of, such research and development.
The meeting, which is to take place at the Scottish Crop Research Institute in the near future, will be attended by representatives of the institute itself; Angus district council; the department of medical microbiology, Ninewells hospital, Dundee; the department of environmental and occupational health medicine, Aberdeen university; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and DAFS. Following the meeting, the institute

director will make a further report to DAFS. Obviously, in matters of this sort questions of research priorities must be addressed, and it is important to be clear about the true causes of the allergic reaction before proceeding further with a breeding programme, but it should be clear from what I have said that the Department has the matter under active review. The report, and any recommendations it contains, will be given very careful consideration.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus, East for raising this matter. I hope that what I have said will serve to reassure the House that my Department and the other Departments involved take this matter seriously and that work is currently being undertaken to establish the role of oil seed rape in allergy. The support that the Department is giving to the research project at Aberdeen university should lead to a greater knowledge about the real, or perceived, effects of oil seed rape.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.